PracticeAuditAuditors fear legal attacks in plans to ‘simplify’ reports

Auditors fear legal attacks in plans to 'simplify' reports

Fears rise of more law suits as third party liability clauses come under review by the APB

court

Auditors could be left open to legal action from all sides in the event of a
major audit failure, under plans to review the auditor’s report.

The Auditing Practices Board is looking again at so-called ‘third party’
liability clauses in the audit report, and considering proposals to remove a
crucial defence against litigation.

The ‘Bannerman’ statement, which auditors use to discourage third parties
from relying on the audit, and so pursuing legal claims, has been flagged by the
APB for reconsideration as part of a broader review of the auditor’s report.

This move is set to cause consternation among the firms, which have only
recently won the ability to limit their audit liability.

Jon Grant, APB board member, told Accountancy Age: ‘As part of [an initiative
to remove boiler-plate wording in audit reports], the APB suggests it might be
timely to reconsider the need for the Bannerman statement.’

Audits are primarily carried out for investors and the Bannerman judgment in
2003 limited the scope of who else could rely on the audit statement.

Lawyers cited the Freightliner case as one that might have concluded
differently without the clause. German truckmaker MAN successfully sued
Freightliner for £350m for a hidden fraud at a subsidiary it had bought, but
Ernst & Young, which had audited the subsidiary, was not held liable in
subsequent action.

The move would also remove a barrier to other actions, from groups, like the
Farepak savers for instance, or possibly bank lenders.

Herbert Smith partner Hardeep Nahal said there might still be barriers to
such claims: ‘To establish whether auditors did assume such responsibility, the
claimants must show that the auditor knew that the report was going to be relied
on for a particular purpose, by a particular party.’

Liability limitation could also become unclear, he added: ‘While the
Companies Act addresses liability to an auditor’s clients, it is not yet clear
whether the auditors could invoke this to limit action from third parties.’

The firms are likely to dig their heels in to keep the clause.

KPMG’s head of audit Richard Bennison said it was unlikely that auditors
would want to see the disclaimer removed.

‘I think having fought long and hard for it, it will take a lot for it to
disappear. It has been used to help protect auditors against potential
litigation. It’s unlikely it will get removed,’ he said.

Related Articles

Is predictive analytics the end of the annual audit?

Audit Is predictive analytics the end of the annual audit?

12h 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

6d 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

1m 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