3 (a) Leigh, a public limited company, purchased the whole of the share capital of Hash, a

Question

3 (a) Leigh, a public limited company, purchased the whole of the share capital of Hash, a limited company, on 1 June

2006. The whole of the share capital of Hash was formerly owned by the five directors of Hash and under the

terms of the purchase agreement, the five directors were to receive a total of three million ordinary shares of $1

of Leigh on 1 June 2006 (market value $6 million) and a further 5,000 shares per director on 31 May 2007,

if they were still employed by Leigh on that date. All of the directors were still employed by Leigh at 31 May

2007.

Leigh granted and issued fully paid shares to its own employees on 31 May 2007. Normally share options issued

to employees would vest over a three year period, but these shares were given as a bonus because of the

company’s exceptional performance over the period. The shares in Leigh had a market value of $3 million

(one million ordinary shares of $1 at $3 per share) on 31 May 2007 and an average fair value of

$2·5 million (one million ordinary shares of $1 at $2·50 per share) for the year ended 31 May 2007. It is

expected that Leigh’s share price will rise to $6 per share over the next three years. (10 marks)

Required:

Discuss with suitable computations how the above share based transactions should be accounted for in the

financial statements of Leigh for the year ended 31 May 2007.

Answer 1

正确答案：
(a) The shares issued to the management of Hash by Leigh (three million ordinary shares of $1) for the purchase of the company
would not be accounted for under IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ but would be dealt with under IFRS3 ‘Business
Combinations’.
The cost of the business combination will be the total of the fair values of the consideration given by the acquirer plus any
attributable cost. In this case the shares of Leigh will be fair valued at $6 million with $3 million being shown as share capital
and $3million as share premium. However, the shares issued as contingent consideration may be accounted for under IFRS2.
The terms of the issuance of shares will need to be examined. Where part of the consideration may be reliant on uncertain
future events, and it is probable that the additional consideration is payable and can be measured reliably, then it is included
in the cost of the business consideration at the acquisition date. However, the question to be answered in the case of the
additional 5,000 shares per director is whether the shares are compensation or part of the purchase price. There is a need
to understand why the acquisition agreement includes a provision for a contingent payment. It is possible that the price paid
initially by Leigh was quite low and, therefore, this then represents a further purchase consideration. However, in this instance
the additional payment is linked to continuing employment and, therefore, it would be argued that because of the link between
the contingent consideration and continuing employment that it represents a compensation arrangement which should be
included within the scope of IFRS2.
Thus as there is a performance condition, (the performance condition will apply as it is not a market condition) the substance
of the agreement is that the shares are compensation, then they will be fair valued at the grant date and not when the shares
vest. Therefore, the share price of $2 per share will be used to give compensation of $50,000 (5 x 5,000 x $2). (Under
IFRS3, fair value is measured at the date the consideration is provided and discounted to presented value. No guidance is
provided on what the appropriate discount rate might be. Thus the fair value used would have been $3 per share at 31 May
2007.) The compensation will be charged to the income statement and included in equity.
The shares issued to the employees of Leigh will be accounted for under IFRS2. The issuance of fully paid shares will be
presumed to relate to past service. The normal vesting period for share options is irrelevant, as is the average fair value of the
shares during the period. The shares would be expensed at a value of $3 million with a corresponding increase in equity.
Goods or services acquired in a share based payment transaction should be recognised when they are received. In the case
of goods then this will be when this occurs. However, it is somewhat more difficult sometimes to determine when services
are received. In a case of goods the vesting date is not really relevant, however, it is highly relevant for employee services. If
shares are issued that vest immediately then there is a presumption that these are a consideration for past employee services.