ICA presses for liability changes
Your support helps us to tell the story
As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.
Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.
Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election
Andrew Feinberg
White House Correspondent
THE Institute of Chartered Accountants is calling on the Government to organise a public inquiry with the aim of reforming the law on auditors' liability and so halting the spiralling claims against the largest firms.
The move, approved by a meeting of the organisation's council yesterday, follows last week's announcement by a committee representing the eight largest firms that it had already sent the Department of Trade and Industry a paper calling for a change to prevent at least one of them collapsing under the weight of lawsuits and a breakdown in the insurance system.
Graham Ward - a partner with Price Waterhouse, which itself faces an dollars 8bn writ over the collapse of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, who chaired the committee that put the proposal to the institute council - claims the ideas are widely supported in industry and the City and have even been given a sympathetic hearing by the Labour Party. But some members opposed the move because they feel it will open the institute to ridicule through representing self-interest and special pleading at a time when auditors have been widely criticised in the wake of company failures.
Like the big eight proposal, the institute advocates amending section 310 of the 1985 Companies Act to allow auditors to limit their liability through agreement with the client company.
This move, which would be subject to safeguards, would bring them into line with other professionals and providers of services. It is seen as an interim measure before abolition of the principle of joint and several liability, which accountants argue makes them unfairly liable for any loss when a company collapses.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments