To recap: The Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board failed to uphold charges against PricewaterhouseCoopers in its debut case. The firm has gone on the warpath to recover its costs.

The FRC has admitted it has made no provision to cover the costs (a not inconsiderable £1.4m against a £14.9m budget) while expert witness Emile Wolff has come under fire for his interpretation. Now it is engaged in a verbal battle with Woolf's firm, Kingston Smith. Ouch.

'The FRC is disappointed with the decision,' began yesterday's statement.' The FRC continues to support the function of the AIDB, as set out in its Scheme. Where there is evidence of misconduct, as there was in the Mayflower case, it is important that the complaint should be heard by a Disciplinary Tribunal sitting in public.'

It's hard not to argue with that assessment. But then the FRC's interpretation grows decidedly shaky.
'The decision in this case gives rise to potentially significant implications for future disciplinary cases. The FRC is giving careful consideration to the implications of the Tribunal’s decision.'

That is a worrying message. Does it mean:

a) The FRC is going to go cap in hand to government and / or firms and businesses to ask for more money to cover the prospect of possible future losses.

b) The FRC has concerns about the work of the AIDB

c) Regulated firms have nothing to fear as they won't be investigated in future

d) All of the above