Auditor Litigation – The Vultures Are Hovering

From Accountancy Age comes this story of a firm called IM Litigation Funding that is bankrolling a suit against Moore Stephens, a next-tier firm. The plaintiff’s bar is already all over this stuff, bringing suits against the auditors much more quickly than in the past. But with the possibility that other entrepreneurial types may see opportunity in the deep pockets of the larger firms and their propensity to settle instead of going to trial, there may be something big brewing here.

Very precious how the the PwC spokesman talks about “fair play” and “unsporting behavior” and the ruthlessness of New York… Brilliant!

Litigation funded by third parties could put auditors out of business
Auditors, long seen as having the deepest pockets by litigants looking to recover cash from collapsed businesses, are facing a new threat. Previously, liquidators could pursue a court action against a former auditor, only if they had enough money for what are generally very costly cases. But more cases against auditors look set to be brought in the future by litigants funded by third parties that hope to get a share of the damages.

The case that has set the cat among the pigeons concerns Moore Stephens and an action brought by former client Stone & Rolls, now in liquidation.

S&R claims that Moore Stephens failed to pick up fraud at the company, and has the financial backing of IM Litigation Funding to pursue the claim.

The claim was initially for as much as £90m. An award of that magnitude could cripple Moore Stephens, which has a turnover of just over £100m.

On the attack

‘This case illustrates the growing trend of seeking to blame auditors for the results of fraud in companies. In that context, litigation funding is a concern to auditors and their professional indemnity insurers,’ says Peter Ellingham, a partner at City law firm Kennedys.

‘On the one hand, no one would suggest it is fair that a bona fide claim should be constrained by a lack of funds. On the other, in general terms, and with no reflection on the specifics of this claim, there is an inevitable concern when an action is funded by a third party with a purely financial interest in the outcome,’ he argues.

There is, however, some good news for auditors. The case has already been through preliminary hearings, and though Moore Stephens had hoped to get the claim struck out, it has succeeded in at least limiting it. Stone & Rolls had hoped to claim for compound interest.

Lawyers for the bankrupt firm argued that losses that were caused by the fraud had had to be made good with debt, and that therefore the nature of the loss meant compound interest was justified.

The trial judge said that the compound interest portion of the claim appeared to be from ‘cloud cuckoo-land,’ and dropped it. That reduced the claim by about £40m. And, in the broader framework, it is still early days.

Peter Wyman, head of professional affairs at PricewaterhouseCoopers, says that he knows of no other claims that are being brought. ‘It’s potentially very concerning,’ he says. ‘But it’s early days. Certainly [at PwC] I’m not aware that we have had any potential litigation that has arisen because somebody is offering to fund it.’

Possible replay

There is only one case in play, but IM Litigation Funding was said to have looked at hundreds of possible actions before deciding on Stone & Rolls. The worry is that this claim is the tip of the iceberg, and if this case is successful, others will surely follow.
Wyman thinks we should stop seeing auditors as deep pockets. He argues that if firms do start going under as a result of claims, then auditors will cease to become such attractive targets. But the worry must still be there as it was with Equitable Life. The life assurer launched huge claims against former auditor Ernst & Young and its former directors.

While some of the directors were millionaires, it was certainly no honey pot. The largest auditors, on the other hand, turn over £2bn a year, and are reckoned for that reason to be juicier targets. Pleading that they do not have deep pockets is probably unlikely to convince potential litigants.
As for the case itself, a further hearing is expected early in the New Year, where more details of Moore Stephens’ alleged negligence will be thrashed out. Commentators will also want to argue that success on the part of Stone & Rolls could be damaging in many other ways. Whatever happens, it’s fair to say that Moore Stephens won’t be the only ones fretting on the outcome.

Unsporting behaviour

The case against Moore Stephens is not just worrying some because it threatens to bring more cases against auditors – but also because it may be a threat to what is perceived as a British way of doing business.‘I got back from New York this morning. Every time you are there you are reminded of the unhealthy litigation culture. We could go down that road,’ says Peter Wyman of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

‘What worries me about litigation is that it creates a broader defensiveness. Directors and auditors thus become less useful.’

2 replies
  1. Independent Accountant
    Independent Accountant says:

    This is total BS. It is the fear of lawsuits that makes these clowns do anything right. If you haven’t, read Oliver Wendell Holmes article, “The Path of the Law”, 10 Harvard Law Review 457, 1897. Brilliant! It explains how things really work. Richard Posner, 7th circuit court of appeals judge called this article the finest law review article ever written. I agree.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] by IMF, a public listed company providing funding of legal claims. It’s a business model I first wrote about in 2007. Recently, veteran plaintiffs’ attorney John P. “Sean” Coffey announced the founding of a […]

Comments are closed.