Over the years, there has been considerable discussion about the extent and exact nature of the responsibilities of the auditor to detect fraud. The purpose of our study is to examine how the courts and professional bodies in a principle-based legal system respond to the change in the audit promulgations introducing proactive responsibilities in relation to fraud. We observe the outcome of actual fraud cases in which the court system and professional bodies in Denmark establish the responsibilities of auditors. The data set includes all publicized cases in the period 1996-2006. We find that the Danish audit profession has adopted the new proactive responsibilities identified by the standard setters, whilst the courts and the professional bodies seem to see 'the changes' as mere clarifications of existing responsibilities. The proactive responsibilities are not further accelerated by prescriptive court rulings.

No abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss the increased harmonisation of the rules on audit reports across Member States caused both by EU legislation, i.e. the Auditing Directive and the PIE Regulation, and the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). All things being equal, this harmonisation of the rules on audit reports across Member States, of course, entails increased standardisation of audit reports across companies but, interestingly, for PIEs both the PIE Regulation and the new and revised audit report ISAs also entail increased customisation of audit reports between companies. At first sight, this customisation of PIE audit reports between companies seems incompatible or inconsistent with the general standardisation of audit reports across companies. However, the article shows that this, in fact, is not the case. Pursuing this purpose, the article identifies and discusses three overall audit report trends: (1) increased harmonisation of the rules on audit reports across Member States; (2) increased standardisation of audit reports across companies; and, for PIEs, (3) increased customisation of audit reports between companies. Auditing, Audit Reports, Audit Legislation, Auditing Directive, PIE Regulation, Public-Interest Entities (PIEs), International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), Key Audit Matters (KAMs)

Taking as a starting point Peter Hommelhoff’s argumentation that accounting law is, in many respects, linked to company law, the purpose of this article is to discuss one perspective of the links between accounting law and company law: accounting concepts in company law. After a brief outline of the existing EU legislation on accounting and a discussion on whether accounting law is part of company law, some examples of accounting concepts in company law – i. e. examples of accounting concepts that have been ‘implemented’ in company law – are discussed, drawing on the Consolidated Company Law Directive (CCLD) and the Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD 2) as well as the International Accounting Standards (IAS) and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These examples are related party transactions, consideration other than in cash and fair value, serious loss of the subscribed capital as well as a few other examples. It is also discussed whether accounting concepts in company law are a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ thing. Balancing the pros and cons, in the author’s opinion, it is mostly positive that accounting concepts are used in company law in areas where this makes sense – and hence, in the author’s opinion, accounting concepts in company law are mainly a ‘good’ thing.

For audits of Public-Interest Entities (PIEs), the PIE Regulation introduced important new requirements regarding auditors’ reporting to those charged with governance – more specifically, auditors’ reporting to the audit committee in an additional report. However, for audits of both PIEs and non-PIEs, there are also requirements regarding auditors’ reporting to those charged with governance in the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). This article starts by answering two important questions: (1) ‘Those charged with governance – who are they?’ and (2) ‘PIEs – which entities are they?’. Next, auditors’ reporting to those charged with governance in non-PIEs and PIEs, respectively, is discussed. The article closes with a discussion on signing of auditors’ reporting to those charged with governance. Auditing Directive, Public-Interest Entities (PIEs), International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), European Model Companies Act (EMCA), Audit Committee