This paper considers the responses of six audit firms, to the four options presented by the European Commission in reforming auditors’ liability. Whilst agreeing with a limitation in audit firms’ liability, it does not consider the means of limitation, as provided by the European Commission in its Recommendation, to be the best means of limiting auditors’ liability. In proposing a means whereby not only a limitation of audit firms’ liability can be achieved, but also one which would serve as a better means of facilitating harmonisation, the paper makes reference to the variants presented in the author’s paper “Proposals For a New Audit Liability Regime”, namely a combination of the first and third options. Further, the wide scope permitted by the Commission in leaving it to Member States to decide upon the appropriate method for limiting liability and the means of limiting liability, as the paper will seek to illustrate, do not present the best opportunities in realising the goal of harmonisation.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number
14878.
Find related papers by JEL classification: K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Accounting - - - Auditing
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: