PracticeAuditUK and US part ways over Enron response

UK and US part ways over Enron response

UK to limit liability as for audit firms a result of Enron, but US declines to do so

The UK is limiting its liability for audit firms because of Enron, but the
US doesn’t want to do the same, arguably for the same reason.

The UK has won the battle in persuading government that allowing auditor
liability arrangements will serve the greater good in securing a vital part of
the profession which serves UK plc.

But it was a battle fought long and hard, mired with mistrust of whether
firms were exaggerating the risk, as well as outright annoyance that the
profession needed protecting in the first place.

It comes perhaps as some surprise that US auditors ­ in the form of the
Centre for Audit Quality whose members number 800 ­ are beside themselves over
the reluctance of the treasury there to consider limiting their liability.

Yet they continue to insist that their financial statements be filed
privately with the US oversight board. And some are drawing the connection
between that lack of transparency, and the goodwill that attaches to them in the
liability debate.

In the UK, the good sense that prevailed over limiting liability had much to
do with the transparent approach of the UK firms, who went out of their way
after the Enron collapse to exhibit ­ by way of their financial statements ­ the
extent of the risk they faced in the event of similar litigation.

Financial Reporting Council chairman Paul Boyle said UK firms generally had
higher levels of transparency than their US counterparts, which contributed to
securing more support for limiting their liability. He suggested that US firms
reconsider their stance.

‘One of the points they’re arguing is that firms should not publish their
financial statements. There is a link here, which they might want to think
about, between them not wanting to publish these statements and the lack of
support for limiting liability.

‘There are still people who say the firms are exaggerating the true scale of
liability risk,’ said Boyle.

The US firms may want to stick to private reports for now.

But if they want their proposals for limiting auditor liability to be taken
seriously, they should equally consider providing the proof of the risk that
they claim to face.

And if the risk is as serious as they say it is, it shouldn’t be too hard to
prove.

Related Articles

Is predictive analytics the end of the annual audit?

Audit Is predictive analytics the end of the annual audit?

4d Martin Herron, MHA MacIntyre Hudson
Auditors ‘in the dock’ over Carillion as report calls for Big Four break-up

Audit Auditors ‘in the dock’ over Carillion as report calls for Big Four break-up

1w Emma Smith, Managing Editor
PCAOB sanctions former Deloitte Turkey CEOs over altered documents

Audit PCAOB sanctions former Deloitte Turkey CEOs over altered documents

2w Alia Shoaib, Reporter
KPMG South Africa to review past audit work amid fresh scandal

Audit KPMG South Africa to review past audit work amid fresh scandal

1m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
FRC introduces £10m sanctions for Big Four firms

Audit FRC introduces £10m sanctions for Big Four firms

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Ukraine’s PrivatBank files $3bn claim against PwC

Audit Ukraine’s PrivatBank files $3bn claim against PwC

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Grant Thornton to exit FTSE 350 audit market, citing Big Four dominance

Audit Grant Thornton to exit FTSE 350 audit market, citing Big Four dominance

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Big Four dominate FTSE 250 audit market in Q1 rankings

Audit Big Four dominate FTSE 250 audit market in Q1 rankings

3m Alia Shoaib, Reporter