Case Studies

Why case studies matter: These anonymised case summaries demonstrate Virtual Auditor's practical experience across multiple practice verticals, with methodology and outcomes documented. Client identities are anonymised per professional confidentiality obligations.

Case Studies is a service offered by Virtual Auditor, an AI-powered CA and IBBI Registered Valuer firm (IBBI/RV/03/2019/12333) led by CA V. Viswanathan (FCA, ACS, CFE, IBBI RV), specialising in professional CA and CS services, from offices in Chennai, Bangalore, and Mumbai since 2012.

Case 1: Pre-Revenue D2C Startup Valuation — Series A

Industry: Direct-to-consumer (D2C) personal care. Stage: Pre-revenue, 6 months post-launch. Purpose: Series A fundraising at ₹12 Cr pre-money valuation. Regulatory context: FEMA 20(R) pricing for US-based lead investor + Rule 11UA compliance for Indian angel investors on cap table.

Challenge: No revenue history. Traditional DCF inapplicable without reliable cash flow projections. Multiple investor classes with different entry prices creating pricing complexity. FEMA floor price requirement conflicted with the valuation implied by the latest convertible note round.

Our approach: Deployed Berkus Method, Scorecard Method, and Revenue Ramp Bayesian estimation for the pre-revenue base. Used Venture Capital Method with comparable exit multiples for the forward-looking component. Ran 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations modelling revenue ramp scenarios from Year 1 to Year 5. Applied DLOM using Finnerty put option model (not a subjective percentage). Cross-checked FEMA floor price against Rule 11UA FMV — identified a 7% gap requiring resolution.

Outcome: Delivered IBBI-compliant valuation report supporting ₹12 Cr pre-money. FEMA pricing certificate issued for the US investor. Rule 11UA FMV gap resolved by adjusting the convertible note conversion terms. Investment closed within the valuation validity window.

Case 2: FEMA Compounding — Late FC-GPR Filing (18 Months)

Industry: SaaS platform. Issue: Singapore-based investor's share allotment was not reported to RBI via FC-GPR for 18 months — a FEMA contravention. Amount involved: ₹3.5 Cr investment.

Challenge: The company was unaware of the FC-GPR filing requirement. By the time they engaged us, the 30-day filing window had expired by 18 months. RBI Compounding Authority imposes penalties up to 3x the contravention amount.

Our approach: Prepared the compounding application under Section 15 of FEMA, 1999 with full contravention history, mitigating factors (first-time non-compliance, genuine unawareness, no revenue loss to government), and voluntary disclosure. Filed FC-GPR belatedly with AD bank. Represented before the RBI Compounding Authority.

Outcome: Compounding order issued with penalty significantly below the maximum statutory limit. FC-GPR accepted. Company's FEMA compliance regularised. Ongoing compliance monitoring engaged to prevent recurrence.

Case 3: Income Tax Appeal — ₹2.1 Cr Addition Overturned

Industry: IT services company. Issue: Assessing Officer made additions of ₹2.1 Cr across 3 heads: (a) disallowance of software development expenses as capital in nature (₹1.2 Cr), (b) transfer pricing adjustment on intercompany transactions (₹65 Lac), (c) disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on foreign payments (₹25 Lac).

Our approach: Classified all three additions using our triage framework: (a) clearly wrong — software expenses were recurring licence fees, not capital. (b) debatable — TP adjustment based on different comparability criteria. (c) partially correct — some payments genuinely required TDS deduction. Filed Form 35 with specific grounds per addition, supporting case law, and economic analysis of the TP adjustment. Partial admission strategy: contested (a) and (b), accepted ₹8 Lac of (c).

Outcome: CIT(A) deleted addition (a) entirely (₹1.2 Cr), reduced TP adjustment (b) to ₹15 Lac, and confirmed accepted portion of (c). Net relief: ₹1.72 Cr out of ₹2.1 Cr — 82% success rate.

Case 4: Forensic Investigation — Employee Embezzlement

Industry: Manufacturing (mid-size). Issue: Promoter suspected financial irregularities by the finance manager over a 3-year period. Estimated embezzlement: ₹40-50 Lac.

Our approach: CFE-led investigation. Phase 1: Benford's Law analysis on 3 years of vendor payment data — identified statistical anomalies in payment amounts clustered around the finance manager's approval authority limit. Phase 2: Vendor network mapping revealed 4 shell vendors with common registered office addresses. Phase 3: Bank statement analysis confirmed payments to shell vendors routed back to the finance manager's personal accounts.

Outcome: Documented embezzlement of ₹62 Lac (higher than initial estimate). Forensic report prepared to evidentiary standards. Criminal complaint filed. Insurance claim for fidelity cover initiated. Internal control recommendations implemented to prevent recurrence.

Case 5: IBC Valuation — CIRP for Manufacturing Company

Industry: Auto components manufacturing. Context: CIRP initiated under IBC. Resolution Professional required two independent Registered Valuer reports under Regulation 35.

Our approach: Fair value: DCF-based going-concern valuation with conservative revenue projections reflecting the company's distressed state. Separately valued tangible assets (plant & machinery, land) using replacement cost approach. Intangible assets (customer relationships, technical know-how) valued using multi-period excess earnings method. Liquidation value: Asset-by-asset forced-sale assessment with distress discounts of 30-60% depending on asset specificity and market depth.

Outcome: Fair value: ₹85 Cr. Liquidation value: ₹32 Cr. The gap (₹53 Cr) demonstrated significant value destruction if CIRP failed. Committee of Creditors used these values to evaluate the resolution plan, which offered ₹61 Cr — above liquidation but below fair value. Resolution approved.

Case 6: GST Registration & Return Filing — Multi-State E-commerce Seller

Industry: E-commerce (fashion & accessories). Issue: Seller operating on multiple marketplaces (Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho) without GST registration in states where inventory was warehoused under FBA/fulfilment models. Annual turnover: ₹1.8 Cr across 4 states.

Challenge: The seller was registered in Tamil Nadu only but had inventory in Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Telangana fulfilment centres. Each state required separate GST registration. Over 14 months of unregistered inter-state stock transfers needed regularisation. E-way bill compliance was absent for warehouse movements.

Our approach: Obtained fresh GST registrations in 3 additional states within 7 working days. Filed backdated returns (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B) for the non-compliance period under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme provisions. Reconciled Amazon/Flipkart settlement reports with actual GST liability. Implemented automated ITC matching across state registrations using our reconciliation framework.

Outcome: All 4 state registrations active. Backdated returns accepted without penalty. Input tax credit of ₹12.5 Lac recovered through proper inter-state reconciliation. Ongoing monthly compliance retained for all registrations.

Case 7: Company Registration — Section 8 (Non-Profit) with FCRA Pre-Clearance

Industry: Social enterprise (education technology). Purpose: Incorporate a Section 8 company for a non-profit EdTech initiative receiving a ₹2 Cr grant from a UK-based foundation. Needed FCRA-ready structure from Day 1.

Challenge: Section 8 licence from ROC typically takes 45-60 days. The UK foundation required proof of incorporation and FCRA eligibility before releasing the first tranche. MOA/AOA drafting needed to satisfy both Companies Act, 2013 and FCRA eligibility criteria simultaneously.

Our approach: Drafted MOA with object clauses aligned to both Section 8 requirements and FCRA Rule 9 eligibility criteria. Filed SPICe+ with the licence application (INC-12) in parallel. Obtained DSC and DIN for all directors concurrently. Prepared FCRA pre-registration documentation (FC-3A) during the ROC processing period. Filed 12A and 80G applications with the Income Tax Department upon incorporation.

Outcome: Section 8 company incorporated in 38 days. FCRA application filed within 5 days of incorporation. 12A registration (provisional) obtained in 21 days. First tranche of ₹50 Lac released by the UK foundation within 60 days of engagement. Total cost: ₹45,000 (inclusive of all government fees).

Case 8: Transfer Pricing — Benchmarking for IT Subsidiary of US Parent

Industry: Information technology (captive centre). Issue: Indian subsidiary providing software development services to US parent. AE transaction value: ₹48 Cr. Previous year's TP study by another firm used TNMM with Berry Ratio — TPO rejected the PLI and proposed an adjustment of ₹6.2 Cr.

Challenge: TPO's objection centred on the inappropriateness of Berry Ratio for software development services. The company's operating margin was 8.5%, while the TPO benchmarked against a set of comparables with a median of 16.2%. Significant comparable selection issues: the prior firm included companies with significant brand/IP ownership in the comparable set.

Our approach: Prepared fresh TP documentation using TNMM with OP/TC as PLI (more appropriate for captive service providers). Applied rigorous comparable screening: removed companies with brand-driven revenue, those with >25% related party transactions, and loss-making companies. Conducted economic analysis demonstrating that the company's functional profile (pure contract developer, no risk-bearing, no IP) justified a lower margin. Prepared detailed FAR analysis distinguishing the entity from high-margin comparables.

Outcome: Revised comparable set yielded arm's length range of 7.5%–13.2% (OP/TC). Company's actual margin of 9.1% (OP/TC) fell within the interquartile range. TPO accepted the revised benchmarking. Adjustment of ₹6.2 Cr deleted entirely. No ITAT reference needed.

Case 9: Statutory Audit — First-Year Audit for Funded Startup

Industry: FinTech (payments). Context: Series B funded startup (₹75 Cr raised). First statutory audit after transitioning from a sole proprietor CA practice. Investors required audit completion within 45 days of year-end for board reporting.

Challenge: Books maintained on Tally with manual journal entries. Revenue recognition for payment processing fees involved complex timing differences. Deferred revenue recognition for annual subscription products. ESOP accounting under Ind AS 102 not previously implemented. Related party transaction disclosures incomplete.

Our approach: Deployed 4-person audit team for 3 weeks. Implemented proper Ind AS 115 revenue recognition for payment processing (agent vs principal assessment). Set up ESOP valuation and accounting under Ind AS 102 using Black-Scholes model. Conducted comprehensive related party identification exercise. Prepared CARO 2020 reporting. Issued management letter with 14 observations across internal controls, IT general controls, and compliance gaps.

Outcome: Audit report issued within 42 days of year-end. Clean audit opinion (unmodified). Ind AS ESOP charge of ₹1.2 Cr properly recognised for the first time. 8 of 14 management letter observations addressed within 90 days. Investor board satisfied with audit quality and timeline.

Case 10: ESOP Valuation — SaaS Company Pre-IPO

Industry: SaaS (HR technology). Context: Company planning IPO within 18 months. ESOP pool of 8% (12 Lac options). Required fair value determination under Ind AS 102 for financial reporting and under Rule 11UA for income tax compliance on exercise.

Challenge: Dual valuation requirement: Ind AS 102 demands fair value at grant date using option pricing model, while Rule 11UA requires FMV as on the valuation date for tax purposes. The company had 4 different grant tranches with varying exercise prices and vesting schedules. Pre-IPO stage meant no observable market price — required enterprise value estimation first.

Our approach: Step 1: Enterprise valuation using blended DCF + market multiple approach. Comparable companies: Darwinbox, Keka, greytHR (Indian HR SaaS). Applied Size and liquidity discounts. Step 2: Per-share value derived using OPM backsolve method (accounting for different share classes). Step 3: ESOP fair value using Black-Scholes with Monte Carlo simulation for performance-linked vesting conditions. Step 4: Rule 11UA FMV computed on per-tranche basis at respective grant dates.

Outcome: Enterprise value: ₹380 Cr. Per-share fair value: ₹285 (vs. latest exercise price of ₹120). Total Ind AS 102 charge: ₹4.8 Cr over the vesting period. Rule 11UA FMV documented for each tranche — protected employees from inflated perquisite tax at exercise. Report accepted by statutory auditors and the company's tax advisors.

Case 11: GST Dispute — Wrongful ITC Denial (₹28 Lac)

Industry: Pharmaceutical distribution. Issue: Department denied ITC of ₹28 Lac on the ground that 3 suppliers had not uploaded their GSTR-1 returns, and the credit did not reflect in GSTR-2A/2B.

Challenge: The company had genuine purchase invoices, delivery challans, bank payment proof, and goods received notes for all disputed transactions. However, the GSTR-2A/2B reconciliation showed the credits as unavailable because the suppliers defaulted on their filing obligations.

Our approach: Compiled a comprehensive evidence package for each disputed transaction: purchase orders, tax invoices, delivery challans, GRN records, bank statements showing payment, and stock register entries. Filed detailed reply to the show cause notice citing the Calcutta HC ruling in Suncraft Energy (2023) and the Delhi HC ruling in Arise India (2023) establishing that ITC cannot be denied solely due to supplier non-compliance. Filed application under Section 73(9) for closure without penalty.

Outcome: Adjudicating authority accepted the documentary evidence. ITC of ₹28 Lac restored. No penalty imposed. The company initiated a vendor compliance monitoring process for future ITC risk mitigation.

Case 12: Business Valuation — Family Business Succession Planning

Industry: Textile manufacturing (3rd generation family business). Purpose: Fair value determination for buyout of one branch of the family. Annual revenue: ₹65 Cr. 3 family branches with unequal operational involvement.

Challenge: Significant difference between book value (₹18 Cr) and perceived market value (₹70+ Cr per the operating family branch). Extensive real estate holdings at historical cost. Brand value not captured on books. Personal goodwill of operating family members needed to be separated from enterprise goodwill. One branch disputed the relevance of minority discount.

Our approach: Income approach: Normalised earnings DCF over 10 years. Removed one-time items and above-market family compensation. Asset approach: Revalued all real estate to current circle rates (SR guidance values). Valued brand separately using relief-from-royalty method. Distinguished personal goodwill (attributable to operating members) from enterprise goodwill (transferable). Applied DLOM for the exiting branch's minority stake using restricted stock studies.

Outcome: Enterprise value: ₹52 Cr (between the two extremes). Exiting branch's 33.3% stake: ₹17.3 Cr pre-discount, ₹14.2 Cr post-DLOM. All three branches accepted the valuation after a joint family meeting. Settlement completed. Shareholder agreement restructured for the continuing branches.

Case 13: Forensic Audit — Vendor Kickback Scheme in Construction

Industry: Real estate development (commercial). Issue: Promoter suspected inflated vendor billing on a ₹150 Cr commercial project. Whistleblower allegation against the procurement head.

Challenge: Construction industry inherently involves variable pricing (material cost fluctuations, labour rate changes). Identifying fraudulent inflation vs. genuine cost overruns required domain expertise. The procurement head had approval authority up to ₹10 Lac — many transactions were structured just below this limit to avoid scrutiny.

Our approach: Phase 1: Data analytics on 18 months of vendor payments. Identified 127 transactions structured between ₹8.5-9.9 Lac (just below the ₹10 Lac limit). Phase 2: Rate comparison analysis against CPWD schedule of rates and actual market rates from 3 independent vendors. Found 15-40% inflation on 4 vendor relationships. Phase 3: Network analysis revealed 2 vendors sharing a common director with the procurement head's spouse. Phase 4: Site verification of billed materials vs. actual consumption using bills of quantities.

Outcome: Total identified overcharging: ₹1.85 Cr over 18 months. Procurement head terminated. Recovery initiated through legal proceedings. Centralised procurement system with dual approval thresholds recommended and implemented. Ongoing forensic monitoring retained for the remaining project duration.

Case 14: Income Tax — Section 263 Revision Set Aside

Industry: Real estate (residential development). Issue: PCIT issued notice under Section 263 to revise a completed assessment, proposing to re-examine ₹4.5 Cr of project completion method revenue recognition and percentage completion method application.

Challenge: The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after scrutiny. The AO had examined the revenue recognition issue and accepted the assessee's position. PCIT's Section 263 invocation was effectively second-guessing the AO's reasoned order.

Our approach: Filed detailed reply establishing that the original AO had made specific enquiries on the exact issues PCIT sought to revise (documented in assessment order paragraphs 4.2-4.7). Cited the Supreme Court decision in Malabar Industrial Co (2000) and CIT v. Max India (2007) establishing that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the AO has taken one of two possible views. Demonstrated that the revenue recognition method followed was consistent with ICDS III and Ind AS 115.

Outcome: PCIT's Section 263 order challenged before ITAT. ITAT held that the original assessment was not erroneous and set aside the PCIT's revision order. The ₹4.5 Cr addition was prevented entirely. Cost savings for the client: approximately ₹1.35 Cr in additional tax liability.

Case 15: Company Secretary Services — Private Equity Investment Structuring

Industry: Healthcare (diagnostics chain). Context: PE fund investing ₹25 Cr for a 30% stake through a combination of primary issuance and secondary purchase from an exiting angel investor.

Challenge: Complex transaction structure requiring simultaneous execution of primary share allotment (rights issue to existing shareholders, then placement to PE) and secondary share transfer. SHA, SSA, and investment agreement drafting needed to align with Companies Act provisions while satisfying PE fund's rights requirements. FEMA compliance needed as the PE fund was a Mauritius-registered FPI.

Our approach: Drafted board and shareholder resolutions for the combined transaction. Prepared SHA with standard PE rights (tag-along, drag-along, anti-dilution, information rights, board nomination). Coordinated with the PE fund's legal counsel on SSA terms. Filed all Forms with ROC (PAS-3, MGT-14, FC-GPR for the FEMA component). Managed the secondary transfer simultaneously — share transfer forms, SH-4, and stamp duty payment. Ensured demat transfer through the company's RTA.

Outcome: Full transaction completed in 28 days from board approval to share credit. All ROC filings completed within statutory timelines. FC-GPR filed within 30 days. No compliance deficiency noted in the PE fund's post-investment compliance audit. Annual secretarial compliance retained.

Case 16: FEMA — ODI Restructuring for Overseas Subsidiary

Industry: Automotive components. Issue: Indian company had an overseas subsidiary in Germany established 5 years prior via ODI under the automatic route. The subsidiary was now loss-making, and the Indian parent wanted to provide additional funding via a shareholder loan + infuse fresh equity. Total additional commitment: USD 2.1M.

Challenge: The original ODI was under the automatic route, but the additional funding exceeded the company's net worth limits under FEMA (ODI) Rules, 2022. The German subsidiary's accumulated losses meant the investment was in a loss-making entity — requiring prior RBI approval under the general permission route. Shareholder loan required compliance with ECB pricing guidelines.

Our approach: Prepared Form ODI Part II for the additional equity infusion with detailed business justification. Filed application for RBI approval with supporting documentation (audited financials of both entities, projections showing viability, board resolution). Structured the shareholder loan to comply with ECB guidelines (interest rate benchmarked to SOFR + spread, maturity > 3 years). Filed Form FC-TRS for the loan component. Coordinated with the AD bank for both equity and loan disbursements.

Outcome: RBI approval received in 42 days. Equity of USD 1.4M infused through the AD bank with APR filing. Shareholder loan of USD 700K disbursed with proper ECB documentation. Annual APR filings restructured to include the expanded ODI commitment. German subsidiary stabilised within 18 months.

Case 17: Startup Advisory — Due Diligence for Acqui-Hire

Industry: EdTech. Context: A mid-size EdTech company was exploring an acqui-hire of a 4-person AI/ML team from a struggling competitor. Transaction value: ₹3.5 Cr (combination of cash and ESOPs in the acquiring company).

Challenge: The target had pending GST demands (₹18 Lac), an ongoing labour dispute, and had not filed annual returns for 2 years. Intellectual property ownership was ambiguous — key algorithms were developed by founders before incorporation and never formally assigned to the company. Employee contracts did not have IP assignment clauses.

Our approach: Conducted focused due diligence across 4 streams: (1) Financial — verified actual liabilities vs. booked liabilities, identified contingent liabilities not disclosed. (2) Legal — analysed the labour dispute exposure, reviewed all employee contracts. (3) Tax — assessed GST demand validity, identified income tax liabilities from non-filed returns. (4) IP — traced origin of all code repositories, reviewed commit histories to confirm authorship. Prepared a risk matrix with quantified exposure for each identified issue.

Outcome: Total identified risk exposure: ₹45 Lac (including GST, labour, and tax non-compliance). Negotiated a price reduction of ₹40 Lac from the original offer. Drafted IP assignment agreements executed before closing. Employee contracts with non-compete and IP assignment clauses prepared for all transferring employees. Acqui-hire completed with clean transfer of assets and people.

Case 18: GST — Anti-Profiteering Investigation Defence

Industry: FMCG (packaged foods). Issue: National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) received a complaint that the company had not passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction (from 18% to 12%) on a product category. Investigation initiated under Section 171 of CGST Act.

Challenge: The company had simultaneously increased raw material costs, changed pack sizes, and introduced new SKUs around the time of the rate change. Demonstrating that the price adjustment was cost-driven rather than profiteering required detailed product-level cost analysis. The NAA investigation timeline was compressed — 60 days for the DGAP to submit findings.

Our approach: Prepared product-level cost buildup analysis showing raw material cost increase of 22% during the relevant period. Submitted weight-adjusted pricing comparison showing that the per-gram price had actually decreased post-rate change. Compiled DGAP response with supporting documentation: purchase invoices for raw materials, production records, and pricing circulars. Attended DGAP hearing with detailed presentation on cost-price dynamics.

Outcome: DGAP report submitted to NAA concluded that no profiteering had occurred. NAA closed the case without adverse order. No penalty imposed. Company's pricing strategy validated. Implemented a GST rate change impact assessment protocol for future rate changes.

Case 19: Trademark & IP — Brand Protection Strategy for Regional Chain

Industry: Quick-service restaurant (QSR) chain. Context: Regional restaurant chain with 12 outlets across Chennai and Bangalore. Multiple trademark applications pending. Discovered 3 instances of brand infringement by unrelated entities.

Challenge: The company had filed trademark applications 3 years prior but had not followed up on examination objections. Two applications were abandoned due to non-response. A competitor in Mumbai was using a confusingly similar name and logo. Two local food stalls were using the exact brand name in their signage.

Our approach: Revived the abandoned trademark applications through restoration petitions. Responded to examination objections on pending applications with evidence of use (invoices, marketing materials, social media presence). Filed opposition proceedings against the Mumbai competitor's trademark application. Sent cease-and-desist notices to the local infringers with evidence packages. Prepared and filed a comprehensive trademark portfolio covering the brand name, logo, tagline, and colour scheme across 3 relevant classes (Class 43: restaurant services, Class 29: food products, Class 30: preparations).

Outcome: 2 trademark registrations obtained within 6 months. Opposition against the Mumbai competitor accepted — their application rejected. Both local infringers complied with cease-and-desist within 30 days. Full brand protection strategy with renewal calendar and watching service implemented.

Case 20: Valuation for ESOP Buyback — Late-Stage Startup

Industry: HealthTech (telemedicine platform). Context: Company at Series C stage (₹180 Cr raised) conducting an ESOP buyback program for early employees. 45 employees eligible. Buyback pool: ₹6 Cr. Required fair value determination for buyback price and tax compliance (Section 17(2) perquisite valuation).

Challenge: Multiple share classes (CCPS Series A, B, C + equity). ESOP exercise price ranged from ₹10 to ₹250 across different grant years. Required a single per-share buyback price that was fair to employees, tax-efficient, and consistent with the latest 409A-equivalent valuation for the US subsidiary. Needed to account for the liquidation preference stack of the CCPS holders.

Our approach: Enterprise valuation using triangulated approach: DCF (base case, bull case, bear case with probability weighting), Market multiples (HealthTech comparable companies including Practo, MFine, and US peers), and Recent transaction method (Series C price adjusted for time elapsed and performance). Equity allocation using OPM (Option Pricing Method) to account for liquidation preferences and participation rights of CCPS holders. Per-share common equity value derived using breakpoint analysis. Perquisite tax computation for each employee based on their specific grant date, exercise price, and FMV at exercise.

Outcome: Enterprise value: ₹620 Cr. Common equity per-share value: ₹485. Buyback executed at ₹450/share (7% discount to FMV, agreed with employee representatives). All 45 employees participated. Total buyback: ₹5.8 Cr. Perquisite tax calculations provided for each employee’s Form 16. Report accepted by statutory auditors, US valuation firm (for 409A reconciliation), and the tax department.

People Also Ask

What makes Virtual Auditor different?

Four credentials in one firm: FCA (financial expertise) + ACS (corporate governance) + CFE (forensic rigour) + IBBI RV (statutory valuation authority). 14+ years of multi-regulatory practice. 100+ IBBI-compliant valuations. This combination is rare in India.

Is the initial consultation free?

Yes. Free 30-minute consultation. Call +91 99622 60333 (Chennai), +91 9513939333 (Bangalore), +91 7700089597 (Mumbai), or email support@virtualauditor.in.

Need Help With This?

Free 30-minute consultation with CA V. Viswanathan, FCA, ACS, CFE, IBBI RV. No obligation.