NOCLAR Update Caroline Gardner, Task Force Chair Ken Siong, Technical Director IESBA Meeting Toronto April 7, 2014 Page 1 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Jan 2014 Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills • Analysis of stakeholder concerns on original proposals re obligation – Understandable concerns – Less compelling concerns – Concerns addressed by use of “right to disclose” approach • Experience under other regimes (AML and anti-corruption) – Scope of obligation – Scope of protection – Practical consequences Page 2 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills NOCLAR – Possible Limitations • Temporal – E.g., Conduct that PA believes will / is intended / may be committed • Level of certainty – E.g., PA’s subjective state of mind; level of proof • Nature of offence – E.g., Type or seriousness of offence; outcome of disclosure • Role of accountant, e.g., forensics, legal privilege • Impact of remediation, e.g., remediation steps satisfactory? Page 3 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Meeting with Herbert Smith Freehills December 2013 Board-Agreed Text • A number of comments for further reflection, e.g. – Suitability of broad scope dependent on extent and mandatory nature of actions – Importance of, and need for, clarity re types of issues to be disclosed – Sufficient guidance on thresholds? (e.g., significant consequences to what?) – Follow up needed for NOCLAR that were not inconsequential but don’t have significant consequences? – Unclear if PA should disclose if entity has taken remedial action but not itself disclosed? – Potential difficulties in assessing whether disclosure threshold crossed? Page 4 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Feb 2014 IOSCO C1 Discussion – Key Comments • Disappointment that Board moving away from a presumption to disclose • Risk that bar is set too high for disclosure • Need for more specificity re what outgoing auditor should communicate to incoming auditor • A concern no outright prohibition on incoming auditor accepting engagement if there is a suspected NOCLAR • Documentation requirement in ISAs should be mentioned in the Code • Align thresholds with the ISAs – Clearly inconsequential, significant consequences, public interest Page 5 | Confidential and Proprietary Information March 2014 CAG Discussion – Key Comments • Current position appears weak – Pendulum seems to have swung too far back • Threshold for disclosure appears too high – Would not capture insider trading, for example • Public interest filter more appropriate at back end re enforcement • Disclosure example provided too obvious • Make clear who has responsibility to document and what to document • Avoid increasing public expectations gap re role of auditors Page 6 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Update – NOCLAR Roundtables Page 7 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Proposed Approach to Roundtables • Opening remarks • Background to project; overview of proposed approach – About 40 mins • Breakout session – Three concurrent groups of max 20 people each (~ 2.0 – 2.5 hrs) • Breakout report-backs (~ 45 mins each) • Final reactions and way forward (~ 30 mins) Page 8 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Invitations Sent and Responses as of April 3rd Hong Kong Brussels Washington Organizations invited 80 97 65 Responded / Bounce-backs 50 58 32 30 (38%) 39 (40%) 33 (51%) Outstanding replies Page 9 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Positive Responses – Number of External Representatives Hong Kong Brussels Washington Regulators / Public Authorities 9 11 6 Preparers 2 4 2 Investors – 1 2 National standard setters 5 – 2 IFAC member bodies 11 13 3 Firms 7 2 4 Other organizations 2 6 4 Total 36 37 23 Page 10 | Confidential and Proprietary Information HK Roundtable – Select Key Organizations • Australian Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board • HK Financial Reporting Council • HK Securities and Future Commission • HK Exchanges and Clearing Ltd • HK Narcotics Bureau • New Zealand External Reporting Board • Asian Development Bank • Singapore Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority • Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission Page 11 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Brussels Roundtable – Select Key Organizations • EuropeanIssuers • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision • UK Financial Reporting Council • Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, Federal Ministry of Justice, and Financial Reporting Enforcement Panel, Germany • Netherlands Authority for Financial Markets • International Corporate Governance Network • European Securities and Markets Authority • Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes Page 12 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Washington Roundtable – Select Key Organizations • Canadian Public Accountability Board • National Association of State Boards of Accountancy • US Chamber of Commerce • US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board • US Securities and Exchange Commission • CFA Institute; Center for Audit Quality • Council of Institutional Investors • International Association of Insurance Supervisors • North American Financial Executives Institutes Page 13 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Forward Timeline • IFIAR SCWG discussion – April 8 • Forum of Firms discussion – April 24 • Task Force meeting – April 25 • Feedback statement for RT – Draft to Board for fatal flaw review – April 23 – Final draft for distribution to all RT participants – April 30 Page 14 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Forward Timeline • Final RT agendas – April 30 • IESBA-NSS meeting – May 28 • Update July 2014 Board meeting • CAG discussion September 2014 • Full review October 2014 Board meeting Page 15 | Confidential and Proprietary Information The Ethics Board www.ethicsboard.org