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
What futures and options say about the cost of war
Spot prices reveal major disruption, futures indicate this will pass, options imply ongoing instability
CME-FICC cross-netting terms fuel clashes
Hedge funds worried by CCP powers to suspend arrangement; clearing members say it’s standard practice
For collateral, can TINA become TIA?
US Treasuries’ dominance as collateral in repo and derivatives is no longer set in stone, argues economist
A Hormuz tipping point may be days away
Agent-based model suggests delays and shortages likely to accelerate after four weeks
Op risk data: HK gets tough on takeover in $200m takedown
Also: Bank staff steal state funds in India; Vanguard settles US net zero lawsuit. Data by ORX News
CRO view: Emerging risks in the age of AI
The risk agenda is shifting beyond market and credit volatility towards operational resilience, AI governance and culture
Interest rate crosswinds buffet IRRBB teams
Political intervention and rapid-fire law changes are skewering bank models for forecasting cashflows
FRTB internal models: quo vadis?
Two risk experts explore how to adjust the FRTB framework to promote internal model usage