U.S. Administrative Law Judge Suspends Chinese Affiliates of “Big Four” Accounting Firms

by Ropes & Gray LLP
Contact

In a surprising turn in the long-running and widely reported dispute between the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Chinese affiliates of the “Big Four” accounting firms, on January 22, 2014, a U.S. Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Chinese affiliates of the “Big Four” should be suspended for a period of six months for refusing to turn over audit documents for certain U.S.-listed Chinese companies under investigation by the SEC. If the decision stands, it could leave more than 130 U.S.-listed Chinese companies and numerous multi-nationals with Chinese operations scrambling to replace their China-based auditors.

As we have reported previously, Chinese companies traded on U.S. stock exchanges and U.S. companies with substantial Chinese operations have, in recent years, encountered questions about their accounting and disclosure practices from U.S. regulators. On December 3, 2012, as part of its effort to investigate potential accounting fraud at unnamed China-based companies that are publicly traded in the United States, the SEC initiated the instant proceeding charging the Chinese affiliates of the “Big Four” accounting firms – Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers – and a former affiliate of BDO International, Ltd., now called Dahua CPA, with violating the Securities Exchange Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The SEC claimed that it had sought to obtain audit documents and work papers from each of these firms in connection with its investigation of their publicly traded China-based clients and that each willfully refused to produce such documents in violation of their legal obligations as foreign public accounting firms. The firms, for their part, claimed that they were not at liberty to produce the documents because doing so could violate China’s Law on Guarding State Secrets and result in severe criminal sanctions for their auditors.

The December 2012 action against the Big Four and BDO was not the first of its kind. In September 2011, the SEC brought a similar action against Deloitte’s Chinese affiliate demanding audit documents related to the SEC’s investigation of one of its former China-based clients. In July 2012, however, the SEC sought (and the court later granted) a six-month stay in the proceedings so that it could continue to negotiate with its Chinese counterpart, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the “CSRC”) regarding cross-border enforcement cooperation and obtaining access to the requested audit documents. Seemingly during these negotiations, the SEC brought charges against the Big Four in December 2012 and, on the same day, it also filed a motion to lift the stay in the Deloitte proceedings stating that these efforts “ended unsuccessfully” and that the CSRC remained “unable or unwilling” to produce the requested documents.

While the December 2012 proceeding has been pending, United States and Chinese regulators have continued to engage in periodic negotiations with the aim of reaching an agreement to resolve the tension between U.S. and Chinese law and allow for the production of China-based audit papers to U.S. authorities. In July 2013, the negotiations appeared to make significant headway when the CSRC announced at the 2013 annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue that it would begin providing audit work papers to the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”). It seemed that this development had born fruit in December 2013 when auditors disclosed in legal filings that Chinese authorities had provided certain audit documents to U.S. regulators and additional documents would be forthcoming. In light of this development, the audit firms sought to have the cases dismissed but the SEC continued to press for substantial sanctions.

In spite of the diplomatic progress, on January 23, 2014, U.S. Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot ruled that the auditors violated Section 106 of Sarbanes-Oxley, as amended by Dodd-Frank, by willfully refusing to provide audit work papers to the SEC upon request, which would be customary when the SEC investigates U.S.-based companies. In his strongly-worded 112 page opinion, Judge Elliot evinced little sympathy for the auditors’ assertion that producing the documents would violate Chinese law and expose employees to jail time, noting that “to the extent [the Big Four] find themselves between a rock and a hard place, it is because they wanted to be there.”

Indeed, Judge Elliot ruled that the Big Four’s actions “involved the flouting of the Commission’s regulatory authority,” in spite of the uncontroverted testimony by representatives from each of the Big Four that they had desired and attempted to comply with the SEC’s document requests. During the proceeding, the Big Four offered evidence that they sought the approval of the CSRC to produce the requested documents to the SEC after receiving Section 106 requests, but were told on more than one occasion by the CSRC not to provide documents directly to U.S. regulators. In fact, the evidence showed that the CSRC went so far as to threaten auditors with “personal” consequences if they provided the audit papers directly to U.S. regulators. The reaction of the CSRC and the auditors should hardly come as a surprise given that, for years prior to the initiation of administrative proceedings, the auditors had disclosed in filings with the PCAOB that they might not be able to produce work papers to U.S. authorities because of Chinese law issues.

Although the SEC was seeking a permanent suspension, Judge Elliot reprimanded and suspended the Big Four from practicing before the SEC or preparing documents filed with the SEC for a period of six months. In deciding the level of sanction to impose, Judge Elliot relied on what he found to be a lack of good faith by the Big Four to comply with U.S. securities laws, writing, “Respondents operated large accounting businesses for years, knowing that if called upon to cooperate in a Commission investigation into their business, they must necessarily fail to fully cooperate and might thereby violate the law… Such behavior does not demonstrate good faith, indeed, quite the opposite - it demonstrates gall.” Judge Elliot also responded skeptically to the argument that suspension of the Big Four would cause investor losses by forcing firms that operate in China to use auditors of lesser quality. He countered that “it does not follow that smaller firms would not be ‘adequate’ as auditors”, although we note that the SEC has been aggressive recently in charging several small U.S.-based auditors of Chinese companies for failing to comply with U.S. auditing standards and exercise appropriate professional care, including Patrizio & Zhao, which the SEC proposed as a potential substitute for the Big Four. Judge Elliot also reprimanded Dahua CPA, but did not suspend the firm.

Wednesday’s ruling does not take effect for twenty-one days and, because the Big Four have already announced their intention to appeal, the ultimate impact of Judge Elliot’s ruling will likely be delayed. If the decision becomes effective, the implications could be significant for U.S.-listed Chinese companies and multi-national companies with Chinese operations that use the Big Four, which may be without China-based auditors for a period of months. It seems possible that there will be further diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Chinese regulators to address any differences that remain in their positions and ultimately resolve this dispute. Pending any diplomatic resolution, many companies that use the Big Four’s Chinese affiliates may seek to bridge the six month gap by temporarily turning to the non-sanctioned Hong Kong or Singapore affiliates of the Big Four. However, the Hong Kong affiliates of U.S. audit firms have also encountered regulatory scrutiny arising from conflicts between local Hong Kong authorities and Chinese regulators unwilling to permit the production of audit papers abroad. In August 2012, Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission brought an enforcement action against an Ernst & Young affiliate for its failure to produce accounting records related to a former China-based client.

The sanctions are imposed on the Chinese firms and not their partners and, thus, the audit firms may be able to fashion a work around where individuals are transferred temporarily to these non-sanctioned shops to assist with the necessary work. It also remains to be seen whether the decision will impact the recent resurgence of interest by investors in the stocks of many China-based companies or by the new wave of China-based companies currently seeking U.S. listings, particularly among internet companies. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ropes & Gray LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ropes & Gray LLP
Contact
more
less

Ropes & Gray LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.