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

20.11.2018 NL law
Seminar 'Personal data from a broader perspective: overlap inside and outside the privacy domain'

Seminar - On 20 November 2018, Stibbe will host a seminar on privacy. Several Stibbe lawyers will discuss personal data from a broader perspective and the overlap that can occur inside and outside the legal privacy domain.

Read more

14.11.2018 NL law
Totstandkoming StAB-verslag niet in strijd met artikel 6 EVRM

Short Reads - De totstandkoming van deskundigenberichten van de StAB is niet in strijd met het in artikel 6 EVRM gewaarborgde recht op een eerlijk proces, zo oordeelde de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Afdeling) in haar uitspraak van 17 oktober 2018. De Afdeling komt tot dit oordeel na een uitgebreide behandeling van de wijze waarop deskundigenberichten van de Stichting Advisering Bestuursrechtspraak voor Milieu en Ruimtelijke Ordening (StAB) tot stand komen.

Read more

16.11.2018 NL law
Tax Alert: Adoption 2019 Tax Plan and ATAD 1 proposal by the Dutch Lower House of Parliament

Short Reads - Further to the several tax proposals released by the Dutch government on Budget Day last September (the 'Proposals' –  see also our Tax Alerts of 20 September 2018 and 16 October 2018), on 15 November 2018 the Lower House of Parliament has adopted the 2019 Tax Plan and the proposed implementation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive ('ATAD 1') per 1 January 2019. In this Tax Alert we will provide you with a short update in respect of the Proposals.

Read more

14.11.2018 NL law
Het Europese PAS-arrest: een programmatische aanpak is toelaatbaar, maar PAS op!

Short Reads - Op 7 november 2018 heeft het Europese Hof van Justitie de prejudiciële vragen van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak beantwoord over de toelaatbaarheid onder de Habitatrichtlijn van het Programma Aanpak Stikstof. De eerste reacties op dit arrest bevatten twijfels over de houdbaarheid van het PAS: het houden van vee wordt moelijker en PAS-vergunningen kunnen niet worden verleend of moeten worden ingetrokken.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring