Skip banner
BNA's Corporate Law & Business Professional Information Center
Homewww.bna.comSearchContact The Editor

BNA Catalog
About Securities Regulation & Law Report
Corporate Law & Business Products

Links
Antitrust
Arbitration
Attorneys
Corporate Governance
Futures Trading
Securities
Stock Markets
Taxation
Accounting
Banking
Business
Communications
Elections
Environment
Investors
Labor and Employment
Trade
U.S. Government

Free Trial

Print Document

Volume: 37 Number: 41
October 17, 2005



BMA, SIA Ask SEC to 'Encourage' AICPA To Repudiate Paper on Auditor, Due Diligence

The Bond Market Association and Securities Industry Association Oct. 13 asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to "encourage" the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to "publicly repudiate" an AICPA draft white paper that seeks to circumscribe the auditor's role in the due diligence process.

The request came in BMA's and SIA's joint letter to SEC officials reporting, as requested by the SEC, on an Oct. 11 meeting hosted by the AICPA regarding the document. The SEC officials were Donald T. Nicolaisen, the SEC's chief accountant; Alan L. Beller, director of the Division of Corporation Finance; and Carol Stacey, chief accountant in the division.

BMA and SIA have contended that the guidance in the AICPA draft white paper effectively would end auditor participation in the due diligence process, thereby harming investors. At the Oct. 11 meeting, which took place in New York, Randy Snook, executive vice president and head of BMA's New York office, told BNA,"We requested that the white paper be withdrawn and repudiated, and that request fell on deaf ears."

Separately, SEC spokesman John Nester told BNA, "We have received the letter and are considering appropriate steps. Our interest is protecting investors and markets." He declined to comment further and said other SEC officials would not comment.

AICPA Sees 'Inaccuracies' in Letter.

AICPA spokesman Joel Allegretti Oct. 13 provided BNA with a statement: "We are reviewing the Oct. 13 letter submitted to the SEC by the Securities Industry Association and The Bond Market Association. We see numerous inaccuracies. The letter mischaracterizes the meeting. We believe it is counterproductive to politicize a meeting that was designed to launch dialogue on how all parties can work together to best serve the public interest."

"Nevertheless," Allegretti said, "we are still willing to work with these groups to serve the best interests of investors and other affected stakeholders."

On Oct. 11, the AICPA Center for Public Company Audit Firms, which produced the white paper, said it never intended the draft white paper to become public and that the AICPA has no plans to circulate it to its members.

Meanwhile, SIA President Marc Lackritz said Oct. 12 that, if necessary, SIA is willing to turn to federal regulators for help in prodding the auditing industry into participating in the due diligence process.

According to Snook, BMA would like the AICPA, after repudiating the white paper, to participate in a forum involving investors and regulators, as well as private industry participants, to discuss the auditor's role in the due diligence process. Snook told BNA that one option for such a gathering might be a roundtable hosted by the SEC and the PCAOB.

Private Negotiations.

The New York meeting about the Aug. 23 white paper, "Auditors Attendance at Due Diligence Meetings with Underwriters," took two hours, BMA and SIA reported. Its participants included, for the AICPA, representatives of six audit firms; for BMA and SIA, representatives of nine investment banks and senior association staff members; and representatives of the New York City Bar Association's Financial Reporting Committee and several law firms.

In their letter to the SEC, BMA and SIA referred to the draft AICPA white paper as White Paper II. "Over the past few years, we have observed a disturbing trend of auditor withdrawal from the due diligence process, which culminated in White Paper II," they wrote.

In an Oct. 6 letter to the AICPA Center for Public Company Audit Firms, BMA and SIA strongly opposed the AICPA's proposed guidance. By effectively ending auditor participation in due diligence, they said, the white paper would seriously jeopardize investor protection. For example, the groups urged, the white paper would prohibit auditors from discussing with the underwriter internal financial controls, awareness of fraud or illegal acts, and specific items in financial statements. Among other things, it suggests that auditors have no duty to correct any management misstatement made to the underwriters in the auditors' presence.


"The draft subverts long-standing due diligence practices."
BMA President Micah Green,

"The draft subverts long-standing due diligence practices," Micah Green, president and chief executive officer of BMA said Oct. 7. "Securities law reflects a basic belief that due diligence is a key element in ensuring good disclosure."

PCAOB Role.

The BMA and SIA letters to the AICPA and SEC also argued that pursuant to the reforms of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, only the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is authorized to establish and interpret auditing standards. Thus, they argued, the AICPA is not authorized to do so in the white paper. Nonetheless, the two protesting groups said that the AICPA draft white paper purports to interpret existing standards for formal auditor reports as applying to informal due diligence discussions.

Snook told BNA that BMA is "in communication with the PCAOB officials" and considering whether to write to them. Meanwhile, the PCAOB has been quiet on the AICPA white paper, the New York meeting, and the BMA-SIA correspondence. On Oct. 12 and Oct. 13, PCAOB spokesman Mike Shokouhi told BNA, "We are aware of this issue and are monitoring developments carefully."

The SIA-BMA letter to the SEC characterized the AICPA's positions at the meeting as being counterproductive and an indication "that … they do not yet accept that, in the interest of investor protection, full auditor participation in due diligence discussions is critical."

The joint letter urged that contrary to AICPA statements at the New York meeting, auditor involvement in due diligence should be enhanced, and, at a minimum, restored to the level that prevailed in years past. While, according to BMA and SIA, the AICPA repeatedly urged the continuation of private negotiations between auditors and underwriters with a view to limiting auditor participation in due diligence, BMA and SIA argued that investors and regulators should have input in the dialogue.

Letter Says Rationale Lacking.

Further, BMA and SIA contended that AICPA offered no rationale at the meeting for its latest position on auditor participation in due diligence. According to the letter, the AICPA instead advocated a " 'standard' that can be used to press audit partners who are still engaging in open due diligence discussions to consistently limit their involvement in due diligence."

BMA and SIA told the SEC that they had made three main requests of the AICPA: publicly to repudiate White Paper II, not to issue further versions of White Paper II, and to establish a fair forum that includes investors, regulators, and other interested parties.

"We see auditors as having a duty to fulfill in the underwriter process. The duty is to be an active participant in the process, not to remain silent," BMA's Snook told BNA.

Snook said that the AICPA is wrong when it says, essentially, " 'There is nothing new here. We are just interpreting standards and principles that already exist. … This is the way auditors should have been behaving all around all along, and we're merely providing clarification.' "

White Paper II "comes at a time when investors are looking for better disclosure, more disclosure, a more rigorous process, not a less rigorous one," Snook commented. "It's that formal discussion between the auditor and the underwriter and the lawyers involved in the process that should lead to a better understanding as to whether the financials of the company are the complete, accurate disclosure for the company at that point in time." However, according to the white paper, what auditors should say to underwriters is, " 'Here are the financials, take them or leave them,' " Snook said.

Separately, the Financial Reporting Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Sept. 30 wrote a letter to the AICPA Center for Public Company Audit Firms arguing that the draft white paper adopts an approach that "inappropriately marginalizes" the auditor's role as a key participant in the due diligence process. The committee called for a roundtable involving all interested parties under the auspices of the SEC and the PCAOB.


The BMA-SIA letter to the SEC is posted at http://www.bondmarkets.com/assets/files/WP2_Oct11MtgLtrtoSEC.pdf. The AICPA's draft white paper of Aug. 23 is posted on the Bond Market Association's Web site at http://www.bondmarkets.com/assets/files/AICPADraftWhitePaperII&Cover-08-23-2005.pdf. The BMA-SIA letter of Oct. 6 is posted at http://www.bondmarkets.com/assets/files/SIA-TBMA_WP2_Letter-6Oct2005.pdf and http://www.sia.com/2005_comment_letters/pdf/SIATBMA106Letter.pdf.

By Rachel McTague


Print Document

Contact the Webmaster at webmaster@bna.com
1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202 - Phone: 1-800-372-1033

Copyright © 2010 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright FAQs     Internet Privacy Policy     License Terms
Disclaimer     Reprint Permissions     BNA Accessibility Statement