1 / 19

Legal Liability

Legal Liability. Week 5. The Legal Environment. Increased litigation, especially in the US. The effect of litigation on the profession. Limitation of auditors’ liability – incorporation of audit firms. Joint and several liability v. proportionate liability. Key legal terms. Privity

rane
Télécharger la présentation

Legal Liability

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. Legal Liability Week 5

  2. The Legal Environment • Increased litigation, especially in the US. • The effect of litigation on the profession. • Limitation of auditors’ liability – incorporation of audit firms. • Joint and several liability v. proportionate liability.

  3. Key legal terms • Privity • Breach of contract • Tort • Ordinary negligence • Gross negligence • Fraud • Joint & several liability • Proportionate liability

  4. Summary of types of actions

  5. Breach of contract • Auditor’s failure to complete the agreed services in the engagement letter. • If client breaches its obligations, then auditor is excused from his contractual obligations. • If auditor discontinues audit without adequate cause, may be liable for economic loss suffered by client. • Other possible issues – late audit report, failure to detect fraud

  6. Negligence – proving it: • The accountant had a dutyto the plaintiff to exercise due care, • The accountant breachedthat duty by not following professional standards, • The accountant's breach of due care was the proximate causeof the third party's injury, and • The third party suffered an actual damage as a result.

  7. Duty of care • Obligation to perform duties with skill & care required, under the circumstances • What other professional accountants would have done, under the similar circs

  8. Privity • The traditional view held that auditors had no liability under common law to third parties who did not have privity with the auditor. • Privity of contract means that the obligations that exist under a contract are between the original parties to the contract, and failure to perform with due care results in a breach of that duty only to those parties. • The landmark decision in this area, Ultramares v. Touche (1931)  auditor not liable to 3rd parties who relied on a neligently-prepared report

  9. Privity – Various cases • Candler v. Crane Christmas & Co (1951) •  Judgement same as Ultramares, but the judge was of the view that accountants owed a duty of care to persons, other than their clients, whom they know would rely on their accounts • Hedley Byrne v. Heller & Partners (1963) • Duty of care owed, although no contractual relationship • Haig v. Bamford (1976) •  Duty of care owed although identity of plaintiff not known to auditor

  10. Privity – Various cases (Contd.) • Scott Group v. McFarlane (1978)  foreseeability • JEB Fasteners v. Marks, Bloom & Co (1982)  reasonable foreseeability • Caparo v. Dickman (1990)  privity rule re-affirmed • McNaughton Paper Group v. Hicks Anderson (1991) • R Lowe Lippman Figdor & Fank v. AGC (Advances) Ltd (1992) • Esanda Finance v. Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) •  Rulings similar to Caparo case

  11. Breach of standard of care • Standard of care – reasonably skill & care of another skilled person carrying out the same assignment • But does not include a guarantee • Watchdog not bloodhound • Professional skepticism, not suspicion • Over the years, the standard of care has evolved • Physical stock observation • Communication to client in instances of fraud • are now part of standard auditing procedure.

  12. Duty to detect fraud • Usually considered by reviewing auditor’s approach to suspicious circumstances • Re Kingston Cotton Mill  auditors not responsible for detecting fraud schemes • Thomas Gerrard, Revelstoke Credit Union v Miller & Berry (1985)  auditors’ suspicion should have been aroused and fraud should have been detected • Cenco, Inc v. Seidman & Seidman  auditor has no duty to uncover fraud committed via collusion

  13. Causal relationship • Loss is the consequence of the breach of duty, must be reasonably foreseeable • Reliance • must have relied on the FS, casual perusal or awareness not enough • If FS prepared for the purpose of an investment decision, and no other source of info available  stronger reliance connection can be drawn • JEB Fasteners  plaintiff’s loss not caused by auditor’s negligence • Contributory negligence • client’s loss may not be entirely due to auditor’s negligence  could be partly due to employee of client • AWA Limited v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells (1992)

  14. Damages • Common claims – loss of investment, overpayment of investment, loss due to fraud, overpayment of dividends • Awards  usually monetary, and usually puts the plaintiff in the same position had the negligence had not occurred • No award if plaintiff has not suffered real measurable loss • Scott Group v. McFarlane • Overstatement of shareholders’ funds by NZ$38,000 • Would not necessarily result in an overpayment for the acquired company  hence no real damage was suffered

  15. Auditor liability for fraud • A false representation by the accountant, • Knowledge or belief by the accountant that the representation was false, • The accountant intended to induce the third party to rely on the false representations, • The third party relied on the false representation, and • The third party suffered damages.

  16. Statutory Liability • Companies Act 1965 • Securities Commission Act 1993 • Securities Commission (Amendment) Act 2000 • s.57  negligence/misrepresentation in financial info in public issues • s.153  right to civil proceedings by person/s suffering damage • S.155  SC has power to take civil actions on behalf of investors who suffer loss

  17. Criminal liability • Companies Act 1965 • s.174(8)  must report to CCM if breach/non-compliance encountered in the course of audit • S.132A  insider trading is an offence

  18. Approaches to minimising legal liability at the professional level • Pushing for tort reform. •  Limitation of auditor liability, e.g. proportionate liability • Establishing stronger auditing and attestation standards. • Continually updating the Code on Professional Ethics and sanctioning members who do not comply with it. • Educating users on expectation gap.

  19. Approaches for minimising legal liability at the firm level • Instituting sound quality control and review procedures. • Ensuring that members of the firm are independent. • Following sound client acceptance procedures. • Being alert for risk factors that result in lawsuits. • Diligently performing and documenting work.

More Related