RegulationCorporate GovernanceIFRS Foundation admits to late filings on Companies House

IFRS Foundation admits to late filings on Companies House

IASB oversight body admits failing to file information at Companies House in timely fashion, but denies its filings have been 'chaotic'

IFRS Foundation admits to late filings on Companies House

THE BODY responsible for setting international reporting standards has admitted that it failed to inform Companies House “on a timely basis” that certain directors had their positions at the organisation terminated.

In some instances, the IFRS Foundation, which oversees the work of the IASB, informed Companies House about the termination of its directors many years after the action had taken place. Under the Companies Act 2006, UK companies are required to notify Companies House within 21 days when directors’ positions are terminated.

Paul Volcker, the well-known US economist, stepped down as chairman of the IFRS Foundation on 31 December 2005. However, documents were not published on Companies House until 7 February 2012.

Similarly, records show that Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa stepped down as a director at the IFRS Foundation on 1 November 2010, but Companies House did not publish the records until 2 February 2013.

“In a few limited cases such notifications were not provided on a timely basis,” Yael Almog, executive director at the IFRS Foundation, wrote in an open letter published on the IASB’s website. “In 2012, we introduced new procedures that corrected these historic anomalies and I can confirm that the list of directors is fully up to date as of 31 December 2013.”

“On several occasions we have had to resubmit the same information to Companies House, while in other cases it has taken several months for the changes submitted to be processed,” Almog added.

The letter was issued as a rebuttal to reports that the IFRS Foundation has a “chaotic and potentially illegal filing record” that contravened its own rules.

“I do not believe that our filings have ever been ‘chaotic’. I also make the point that the Foundation has no responsibility for UK company law, and therefore cannot have broken its own,” Almog wrote.

Related Articles

Solvency and liquidity queries tackled in FRC going concern guidance

Accounting Standards Solvency and liquidity queries tackled in FRC going concern guidance

1y Calum Fuller, Reporter
Leader: Law firms should heed accountancy's listing mistakes

Accounting Firms Leader: Law firms should heed accountancy's listing mistakes

2y Kevin Reed, Writer
Watchdog issues review of audit governance code

Audit Watchdog issues review of audit governance code

2y Chris Warmoll, Writer
Extended audit and audit committee reports produce varied results

Audit Extended audit and audit committee reports produce varied results

3y Naomi Rainey, Writer
FRC consulting on going concern in changes to CG code

Corporate Governance FRC consulting on going concern in changes to CG code

3y Richard Crump, Writer
FRC publishes final guidance on going concern

Business Regulation FRC publishes final guidance on going concern

3y Richard Crump, Writer
FRC reveals ‘struggle’ in IASB discussions

Accounting Standards FRC reveals ‘struggle’ in IASB discussions

3y Naomi Rainey, Writer
Interview: Michel Prada defends IFRS Foundation governance

Corporate Governance Interview: Michel Prada defends IFRS Foundation governance

3y Richard Crump, Writer