
Audit firms’ liability cap recommended by European Commission
Unlimited liability coupled with insufficient insurance coverage is no longer tenable for audit firms
BRUSSELS – The European Commission has issued a recommendation to cap auditors’ civil liability. The main purpose of this recommendation is to encourage the growth of alternative audit firms in a competitive market but it is also a response to the increasing trend of litigation and lack of sufficient insurance cover in this sector. It aims to protect European capital markets by ensuring that audit firms remain available to carry out audits on companies listed in the EU.
“After in-depth research and extensive consultation, we have concluded that unlimited liability combined with insufficient insurance cover is no longer tenable,” said Charlie McCreevy, internal market and services commissioner. “It is a potentially huge problem for our capital markets and for auditors working on an international scale. The current conditions are not only preventing the entry of new players in the international audit market, but are also threatening existing firms. In a context of high concentration and limited choice of audit firms, this situation could lead to damaging consequences for European capital markets.”
The recommendation leaves it to each member state to decide on the appropriate method for limiting liability, and introduces a set of key principles to ensure that any limitation is fair for auditors, the audited companies, investors and other stakeholders.
The key principles to be followed by member states when they select a limitation method are:
•the limitation of liability should not apply in the case of intentional misconduct on the part of the auditor;
•a limitation would be inefficient if it does not also cover third parties; and
•damaged parties have the right to be fairly compensated.
The CEA, the organisation for the European insurance and reinsurance industry, was quick to voice its disappointment with the move. “As a stakeholder who contributed to the discussions on the relevance and conditions of auditors’ professional liability, the CEA, representing the European insurance and reinsurance industry, regrets that the EC has not heeded its opposition to such a cap,” it said. CEA president Gérard de la Martinière said: “It is unfortunate that the strong arguments from an industry that invests more than €7,200 billion, much of it in the capital markets, have not been heard.”
The CEA statement stressed that it had always argued that such a cap will not prevent large/catastrophic losses and will not improve the insurability of large auditing firms and the availability of insurance coverage. “This is especially true against the background of the current financial turmoil, where most ‘subprime’-type claims have a US element or where the allegations or acts are deemed to be intentional. A cap on liability implemented in Europe will make no difference at all and will not prevent large losses,” it said.
‘In issuing its recommendation, the EC has clearly decided to protect the community of auditors in Europe, particularly the larger ones, with a cap on their liability. However, the result is likely to be that victims – shareholders and institutional investors – will seek other ways to recover a large loss. This could shift the problem to directors and officers or errors and omissions insurance, putting up costs, reducing availability or both,’ continued the CEA statement.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
Enterprise risk managers: police or foot soldiers?
With more than 5,000 data points from 37 banks, our first ERM Benchmarking exercise shines a light on very different missions
CME mystery FCM’s purpose revealed
F&O Financial revealed as non-clearing broker for new event contracts venture with FanDuel
When AI models malfunction, address the problem not the math
Governance of artificial intelligence models should focus on actionable outcomes rather than interpretability, argues former chief regulator
Some European banks still failing net interest income test
Swedbank joins seven other outliers after it updates methodology assumptions
Ice’s VAR migration reignites debate on margin levels
CCP says IRM 2 is more sensitive to portfolio risk, but banks fear increased risk to clearing members
Op risk data: 1MDB scandal still haunts Wall Street
Also: Woodford in hot water; Salesforce voice phishing hooks multiple firms. Data by ORX News
Dora delay leaves EU banks fighting for their audit rights
Regulation requires firms to expand scrutiny of critical vendors that haven’t yet been identified
Future proof: can FMX-LCH platform prevail?
A year into FMX Futures Exchange, Treasury futures volumes are low, and firms aren’t cross-margining