|
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
On December 13, 2004, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company dismissed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP completed the audit of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended October 29, 2004 on January 27, 2005 completely terminating PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s appointment as the independent registered public accounting firm for the Company. The decision to change principal accountants was approved by the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors of the Company.
The reports of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP on the consolidated financial statements of Bridgford Foods Corporation for the years ended October 29, 2004 and October 31, 2003, did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principle.
During the year ended October 29, 2004, and through January 27, 2005, there were no disagreements with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, would have caused it to make reference thereto in its reports on the financial statements for such years.
On December 14, 2004, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Haskell & White LLP as its new independent registered public accounting firm as of December 13, 2004 for the fiscal year beginning October 30, 2004 and ending October 28, 2005.
During the Company’s fiscal year ended October 28, 2005 and through the subsequent interim period ended January 26, 2006, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted Haskell & White LLP regarding any of the matters or events set forth in Item 304(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of Regulation S-K.
During the year ended October 28, 2005, and through January 26, 2006, there were no disagreements with Haskell & White LLP on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Haskell & White LLP would have caused it to make reference thereto in its report on the financial statements for the year.
During the years ended October 28, 2005, October 29, 2004, and October 31, 2003, and through January 26, 2006, there have been no reportable events (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Management of the Company, with the participation and under the supervision of the Company’s Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on this evaluation the Chairman and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective as of the end of the period covered by this SEC filing to provide reasonable assurance that material information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
The Company’s management, including its Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that the Company’s disclosure controls and internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control.
|
