| |
Obstructive directors face jail
threat
Political Correspondent Company directors
could be jailed if they refuse to co-operate with investigations into
their financial reporting under powers in the companies bill.
The legislation, published yesterday, would allow the Financial Reporting
Review Panel to apply for a court order to release documents related to
a company's
accounts. Failure to comply with an order would be contempt of court,
punishable by imprisonment or a fine.
The companies bill is designed to improve the reliability of financial
reporting and the independence of auditors, raising confidence in UK corporate
governance standards following the Enron and WorldCom scandals in the
US.
Jacqui Smith, junior industry minister, described
it as the "logical legislative conclusion" to complement other
measures, such as the Higgs review, changes to the corporate governance
code and the government's consultation of "rewards for failure".
The government believes the FRRP needs powers to demand access to documents
if it is to become more proactive in ensuring compliance with reporting
standards, although it will not be
able to use court order powers for random surveys. The bill will also
allow t he Inland Revenue to pass information on a company's accounts
to the FRRP.
Companies could face a levy - added to their annual listing fees - to
pay for the Financial Reporting Council, which encompasses the FRRP, if
voluntary arrangements breakdown.
As expected, there is no provision to limit auditors'
liability, despite lobbying by the accountancy profession for legal protection
in litigation cases. Ernst & Young, one of the big four firms, could
be destroyed if a £2.6bn negligence claim by Equitable Life, the
troubled life assurer, succeeds against its former auditor.
Instead, a consultation on the "state of concern around auditor liability"
and "a range of options, including the status quo" would be
launched "hopefully by the end of the year", she said. Ms Smith
conceded that liability limits could be added at a later stage but that
it was "probably better dealt with in the larger company reform legislative
process". There was no indication of when the government would introduce
a larger overhaul of company law.
|
|