Whistleblower Lawsuit Targets Big Four Liability Protections

A former partner at a leading professional services firm is taking legal action to challenge a long-standing liability shield that protects Australia's big four accounting firms. The goal is to increase accountability for negligence within their consulting arms, though the move could disrupt long-established caps that limit compensation payouts to $20 million per client engagement.

Australia’s professional standards framework was created after the 2001 collapse of insurer HIH, which caused a national insurance crisis. The disruption affected $2 billion in construction projects and a wide range of other services. In response, the government introduced legislation that allowed certain industries, including accounting, to adopt professional standards schemes. These schemes limit the volume and value of client claims related to professional negligence.

Originally, the laws were intended to cover accountants performing public audits. In 2007, the rules were extended to include the big four's consulting services. However, firms like McKinsey, which do not offer audit services, do not receive these protections. Currently, in the event of a $20 million negligence claim, liability is split between insurance and the firm. In a firm with 1,000 partners, this leaves only about $1,000 in personal exposure per partner.

The lawsuit argues that this arrangement allows the big four to benefit from legal and tax privileges without meeting the same obligations as standard corporations. These firms do not pay certain taxes, are not required to publish audited financial statements, and operate outside standard corporate laws. Should the legal challenge succeed, the consulting divisions of KPMG, PwC, Deloitte and EY may be required to incorporate and bear full financial responsibility for any misconduct.

Last year, the big four earned an estimated $8 billion from consulting. Most of this business falls under the existing liability cap. In recent years, the firms have faced increasing criticism for ethical breaches, including leaks of confidential information and financial advice that allegedly served their own interests rather than those of clients or governments. Despite this, critics claim disciplinary actions have been limited.

The case argues that shielding firms from full financial responsibility creates conditions where revenue is placed above ethics. If the court removes liability caps for consulting operations, it could lead to major changes in the way Australia oversees its largest professional services firms. It may also influence regulatory reform in other sectors.

Source: Australian Financial Review, Wikipedia - PwC Tax Scandal, Accountancy Age

Doga Sydney - Corporate Cuddles & Puppy Yoga

Take what you’re doing offline and circle back on team wellness because real team bonding happens with puppies, not PowerPoint. Give your team an event they’ll actually look forward to with Puppy Yoga!

We’ve got you covered with Corporate Cuddles and Puppy Yoga 🐶