1 / 16

NOCLAR Update

NOCLAR Update. IESBA Meeting Toronto April 7, 2014. Caroline Gardner, Task Force Chair Ken Siong, Technical Director. Jan 2014 Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills. Analysis of stakeholder concerns on original proposals re obligation Understandable concerns Less compelling concerns

arty
Télécharger la présentation

NOCLAR Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NOCLAR Update IESBA Meeting Toronto April 7, 2014 Caroline Gardner, Task Force Chair Ken Siong, Technical Director

  2. Jan 2014 Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills • Analysis of stakeholder concerns on original proposals re obligation • Understandable concerns • Less compelling concerns • Concerns addressed by use of “right to disclose” approach • Experience under other regimes (AML and anti-corruption) • Scope of obligation • Scope of protection • Practical consequences

  3. Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills NOCLAR – Possible Limitations • Temporal • E.g., Conduct that PA believes will / is intended / may be committed • Level of certainty • E.g., PA’s subjective state of mind; level of proof • Nature of offence • E.g., Type or seriousness of offence; outcome of disclosure • Role of accountant, e.g., forensics, legal privilege • Impact of remediation, e.g., remediation steps satisfactory?

  4. Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills December 2013 Board-Agreed Text • A number of comments for further reflection, e.g. • Suitability of broad scope dependent on extent and mandatory nature of actions • Importance of, and need for, clarity re types of issues to be disclosed • Sufficient guidance on thresholds? (e.g., significant consequences to what?) • Follow up needed for NOCLAR that were not inconsequential but don’t have significant consequences? • Unclear if PA should disclose if entity has taken remedial action but not itself disclosed? • Potential difficulties in assessing whether disclosure threshold crossed?

  5. Feb 2014 IOSCO C1 Discussion – Key Comments • Disappointment that Board moving away from a presumption to disclose • Risk that bar is set too high for disclosure • Need for more specificity re what outgoing auditor should communicate to incoming auditor • A concern no outright prohibition on incoming auditor accepting engagement if there is a suspected NOCLAR • Documentation requirement in ISAs should be mentioned in the Code • Align thresholds with the ISAs • Clearly inconsequential, significant consequences, public interest

  6. March 2014 CAG Discussion – Key Comments • Current position appears weak • Pendulum seems to have swung too far back • Threshold for disclosure appears too high • Would not capture insider trading, for example • Public interest filter more appropriate at back end re enforcement • Disclosure example provided too obvious • Make clear who has responsibility to document and what to document • Avoid increasing public expectations gap re role of auditors

  7. Update – NOCLAR Roundtables

  8. Proposed Approach to Roundtables • Opening remarks • Background to project; overview of proposed approach • About 40 mins • Breakout session • Three concurrent groups of max 20 people each (~ 2.0 – 2.5 hrs) • Breakout report-backs (~ 45 mins each) • Final reactions and way forward (~ 30 mins)

  9. Invitations Sent and Responses as of April 3rd

  10. Positive Responses – Number of External Representatives

  11. HK Roundtable – Select Key Organizations • Australian Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board • HK Financial Reporting Council • HK Securities and Future Commission • HK Exchanges and Clearing Ltd • HK Narcotics Bureau • New Zealand External Reporting Board • Asian Development Bank • Singapore Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority • Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission

  12. Brussels Roundtable – Select Key Organizations • EuropeanIssuers • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision • UK Financial Reporting Council • Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, Federal Ministry of Justice, and Financial Reporting Enforcement Panel, Germany • Netherlands Authority for Financial Markets • International Corporate Governance Network • European Securities and Markets Authority • Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes

  13. Washington Roundtable – Select Key Organizations • Canadian Public Accountability Board • National Association of State Boards of Accountancy • US Chamber of Commerce • US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board • US Securities and Exchange Commission • CFA Institute; Center for Audit Quality • Council of Institutional Investors • International Association of Insurance Supervisors • North American Financial Executives Institutes

  14. Forward Timeline • IFIAR SCWG discussion – April 8 • Forum of Firms discussion – April 24 • Task Force meeting – April 25 • Feedback statement for RT • Draft to Board for fatal flaw review – April 23 • Final draft for distribution to all RT participants – April 30

  15. Forward Timeline • Final RT agendas – April 30 • IESBA-NSS meeting – May 28 • Update July 2014 Board meeting • CAG discussion September 2014 • Full review October 2014 Board meeting

More Related