Home › CA Final › financialreporting › Ind AS 111 — Joint Arrangements: Joint Control, Implicit/Explicit Joint Control, Protective Rights › Entity A and Entity B have unanimous-consent dec…
Entity A and Entity B have unanimous-consent decision-making over relevant activities. The contract also gives Entity A unilateral authority to take decisions for dispute resolution with vendors/customers (e.g. arbitration, suing in court). Is this still a joint arrangement?
AYes — dispute-resolution authority is incidental and does not displace joint control over relevant activities, which still require unanimous consent
BNo, because the entity is now controlled by A
CNo — A's unilateral dispute-resolution authority breaks joint control
DOnly if the dispute-resolution rights are non-substantive
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: A. Yes — dispute-resolution authority is incidental and does not displace joint control over relevant activities, which still require unanimous consent
Dispute-resolution powers (arbitration triggers, lawsuits) do not override the unanimous-consent requirement on relevant activities. Ind AS 111 illustration 13 confirms the arrangement remains a joint arrangement.
Related questions
Which of the following is the BEST characterisation of the difference between a joint operWhen classifying a joint arrangement structured through a separate vehicle as a joint operX Ltd. and Y Ltd. buy land jointly and divide it into 3 equal parts. X manages Part 1 alonABC Ltd. is 50:50 between AB and BC. AB appoints 3 directors and BC appoints 2 (board of 5Four investors A (10%), B (20%), C (30%), D (40%) — articles require majority voting for rRS Ltd. is formed by R (highway construction) and S (highway operation). R decides construDEF Ltd. is established by D, E and F. Unanimous consent of all three is required ONLY forMN Software Ltd. is owned 50%-50% by M and N. Each appoints 2 directors (board of 4); deci