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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
Buy side would welcome more guidance on managing margin calls
FSB report calls for regulators to review existing standards for non-bank liquidity management
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
Benchmark switch leaves hedging headache for Philippine banks
If interest rates are cut before new benchmark docs are ready, banks face possible NII squeeze
Op risk data: Tech glitch gives customers unlimited funds
Also: Payback for slow Paycheck Protection payouts; SEC hits out at AI washing. Data by ORX News
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies
Top 10 op risks: change brings challenges as banks splash the cash
Higher interest margins and a trend toward insourcing drive major tech projects
Top 10 op risks: deepfakes drive rise in fraud fears
External fraud re-enters top 10 as artificial intelligence provides new tools for criminals
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: third parties stoke cyber risk
- Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites