Short Reads

Disclosure of audit files: a balancing exercise between confidentiality and the public interest to uncover the truth

Disclosure of audit files: a balancing exercise between confidentiali

Disclosure of audit files: a balancing exercise between confidentiality and the public interest to uncover the truth

03.06.2016 NL law

On 5 January 2016, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that under circumstances, the public interest to uncover the truth outweighs the confidentiality duty of an auditor towards his client in case of a claim for disclosure of records. In the case at issue, the Court of Appeal ordered that the complete audit files had to be disclosed.

Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 5 January 2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:30 (Colima c.s./PwC)

Claiming disclosure of records

A claim for disclosure of records can be based on article 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Proceedings (“DCCP”). Pursuant to this article, a party may obtain records if (i) he has a legitimate interest (rechtmatig belang) in doing so, (ii) the records are sufficiently specified, (iii) there is a legal relationship to which the claimant is a party, (iv) the claim for disclosure is directed towards the party with the records in its possession and (v) none of the exceptions set forth in article 843a (3) and (4) DCCP apply.

Background of the case

This case concerns the potential liability of PricewaterhouseCoopers et al. (“PwC”) as the auditing firm of several funds that invested in Madoff’s Ponzi-scheme. PwC audited and approved the annual accounts of these funds over a number of years. When the fraud was exposed in 2008, it turned out that the funds’ underlying assets did not exist.

Against that background Colima et al. (“Colima”), a group of duped investors, raised a professional negligence claim against PwC. In support of its claim in the main proceedings, Colima raised a procedural motion (incident) in which it claimed disclosure of PwC’s audit files of the funds over the years 2000 to 2005.

On 3 September 2014, the District Court of Amsterdam (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:6121) dismissed the claim for lack of a sufficient legitimate interest. A Disciplinary Court had earlier declared a complaint of Colima against the auditor with regard to the approval of the annual accounts unfounded and ruled that there was no reason for additional auditing measures. The District Court ruled that Colima insufficiently stated that disclosure of the complete audit file was likely to create new facts or circumstances. In the District Court’s view it was unlikely that it would have caused to deviate from the irrevocable ruling of the Disciplinary Court.

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal: a far-reaching disclosure obligation

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal disagreed with the District Court. According to the Court of Appeal, Colima does have a sufficient legitimate interest in obtaining the audit files of PwC. The Court of Appeal emphasized that one of the functions of an audit file is to be able to account for the work of an auditor ex post.

The Court of Appeal also attached importance to the fact that the approval of annual accounts served to protect the interests of third parties (i.e. investors) who should be able to rely on the annual accounts. According to the Court of Appeal, a failure in the review of PwC could constitute an unlawful act against the investors, among whom Colima. Consequently, Colima has a legal relationship with PwC as well as a legitimate interest in obtaining the audit files in support of its claim in the main proceedings. It seems probable that the potential liability of the auditor played (and will play) an important role in entitling disclosure of the audit files.

PwC argued that the audit files contain confidential information about its clients and that PwC is bound by a duty of confidentiality towards its clients. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the confidential nature of the audit files by imposing a duty of confidentiality on Colima. However, the Court of Appeal reiterated that PwC does not have a professional privilege as recognized in paragraph 3 of article 843a DCCP. The Court of Appeal concluded that in this case, the public interest of uncovering the truth outweighs the importance of confidentiality. In order to form a correct and complete picture of PwC’s review – and therewith PwC’s potential liability – disclosure of the entire audit files is necessary.

Going forward, clients of an auditor should be aware that documents they provide to their auditor may at some point in time have to be disclosed to a third party.

Related news

17.05.2022 EU law
Digital Law Up(to)date: Art. 17 of directive 2019/790 is valid!

Articles - The CJEU validates the new liability regime for large online platforms organised by article 17 of the directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. The action was brought by the Republic of Poland to annul a part of article 17 as it is contrary to the right to freedom of expression.

Read more

17.05.2022 LU law
New CSSF Circular on UCI administrators

Articles - The CSSF published on Monday 16 May 2022 the Circular 22/811 on UCI administrators to clarify the CSSF current requirements by specifying the principles of sound governance and the CSSF expectations on internal organisation and good practices.

Read more

16.05.2022 BE law
Wanneer maakt verkoopweigering een rechtsmisbruik uit?

Articles - Volgens het Hof van beroep te Gent[1] heeft een niet-dominante onderneming de vrijheid om de verderzetting van een overeenkomst te weigeren, op basis van haar eigen subjectieve beleidsstrategie. De rechter mag de beleidsstrategie van de onderneming niet gaan evalueren of bekritiseren, en de onderneming is niet verplicht haar motieven naar voren te brengen.

Read more

17.05.2022 NL law
Mobiliteit en de Omgevingswet: met het Besluit werkgebonden personenmobiliteit wil de regering sturen op verduurzaming van woonwerkverkeer en zakelijk verkeer

Short Reads - Het Besluit werkgebonden personenmobiliteit is op 19 april 2022 aan de Staten-Generaal voorgehangen. Dit besluit verplicht ondernemingen met meer dan 100 werknemers om gegevens aan te leveren over hun woon-werk verkeer en zakelijke verkeer van werknemers. Het besluit strekt tot naleving van de Europese Klimaatwet, de Green deal en de Klimaatwet. In dit blog belichten wij de belangrijkste aspecten van het besluit.

Read more