Canada: No Liability Despite Auditors' Knowledge That Lenders Would Rely Upon Audit Opinion: Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce v. Deloitte & Touche, 2015 ONSC 7695

Last Updated: December 29 2015
Article by Lisa C. Munro

The case, decided on a motion for partial summary judgment, addresses two very important issues in the development of auditors' liability jurisprudence in Canada:

  1. The duty of care owed by auditors to lenders of the client under a Hercules Managements analysis in circumstances in which the auditors have a very close relationship with the client and are familiar with the bank's financing arrangements. In this case, there was no duty of care despite the motions judge's findings of fact that the auditors knew that the audited financial statements would be used by the company to obtain financing, that the credit agreement required the company to provide the audited financial statements to the lenders, that the lenders had copies of the audited financial statements and the audit opinion, that the lenders would rely upon them, and that the auditors did not include a disclaimer of reliance in the engagement letter. Significantly, the motions judge found that all auditors know that lenders will rely upon their audit opinions.
  2. The liability of members of an international association of independent accounting firms where only one member was involved in the audit. In this case, there was no duty of care owed by the member firm which promulgated auditing standards used by the auditing firm but which had no involvement in the audit and had no relationship with the lenders. Nor was there any vicarious liability because the member firms operated independently.

Although the defendants raised the defence of ex turpi causa, it was not at issue on the motion.

Key facts

On August 11, 1997, Philip Services Corp. ("Philip") signed a credit agreement to borrow U.S. $1.5 billion from a syndicate of 39 lenders led by, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC").

Defendants Deloitte & Touche and certain affiliates and successors (together, "Deloitte") were the auditors of Philip. In making the loan, CIBC relied upon the audited financial statements of Philip for the years ended December 31, 1996, and December 31, 1997, and the Deloitte audit opinions dated February 28, 1996, and February 26, 1997.

Deloitte was the Canadian member of an international association of independent accounting firms, which included defendant Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu formerly known as Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu International, a Swiss verein ("Deloitte International"). Deloitte is legally distinct from its members and is not organized or operated as a partnership. Member firms are not partners, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, or branches of Deloitte International. Deloitte International developed a manual of standards and practices to be used by all firm members for the performance of audit engagements. The manual provided that letters of engagement could provide restrictions on the use to be made of audited financial statements. The engagement letter between Deloitte and Philip contained no such restriction.

Deloitte had a close relationship with Philip. It maintained an office at Philip's premises. Many of Philip's senior management were former Deloitte partners. Deloitte regularly attended audit committee meetings of the Philip board of directors. Deloitte knew how much Philip borrowed under its credit facilities, whether or not Philip had borrowing capacity under those facilities, and Philip's need for increasing credit due to its acquisition strategy. Deloitte reviewed the credit agreements annually as part of its audit process, so each year it knew the terms (including the provision of audited financial statements) and the consortium of lenders (which changed over time). The lenders argued on the summary judgment motion that Deloitte was also providing counsel and advice to Philip about financing its operations and acquisition plans; however, the motions judge found that Philip took no such advice from Deloitte. The motions judge said that while Deloitte's audit work and tax advice provided information to inform Philip's business plans, and while Deloitte needed to know about Philip's business plans to prepare the audit opinions, Deloitte's role was not that of business advisor or consultant. Deloitte's role was limited to performing statutory audits.

On April 22, 1997, two months after the release by Deloitte of its 1997 audit opinion, Deloitte learned of Philip's plans to seek a U.S. $1.5 billion credit facility to finance its expansion plans and it knew that lenders would review the audited financial statements before making the loan. Deloitte attended a May 7, 1997, Philip audit committee meeting, at which time it was advised that Philip had negotiated a U.S. $1.5 billion facility underwritten by CIBC, Wood Gundy, and Bankers Trust to be in place by mid-August and, in the meantime, the company had obtained bridge financing to December 31, 1997. Deloitte provided no advice and was not consulted about these loans.

On May 29, 1997, CIBC issued a commitment letter to Philip and, in July, Deloitte accompanied CIBC and Phillip on a trip to allow CIBC to visit various Philip sites. However, the motions judge found that the only interaction between Deloitte and CIBC was as travelling companions. Deloitte knew why the trip had been organized for CIBC, but CIBC did not know why Deloitte was present for the trip and obtained no information or advice from Deloitte.

On July 11, 1997, Philip and CIBC made a presentation to a group of bankers as part of its efforts to syndicate the loan. Deloitte was present to obtain information relevant to the following year's audit. Deloitte had no involvement in the presentation.

On August 11, 1997, the credit agreement was signed – there were 39 lenders in the syndicate, including CIBC. The credit agreement contained a compliance certificate signed by Deloitte. However, at no time was there any communication between CIBC and Deloitte in connection with Deloitte's review of the Philip financial statements or how the loan should be structured. CIBC did not ask Deloitte to do any work for the syndicate of lenders. CIBC did not ask Deloitte's permission to rely upon the audit opinions for the purpose of deciding whether to make the loan. However, the motions judge found that Deloitte knew that the financial statements would be used by Philip to obtain financing, that the credit agreement required Philip to provide the audited financial statements to CIBC, that CIBC had copies of the audited financial statements and the audit opinion, that CIBC and the other members of the syndicate would rely upon them, and that Deloitte did not include a disclaimer of reliance in its engagement letter. Significantly, the motions judge found that all auditors know that lenders will rely upon their audit opinions. Further, the motions judge found that CIBC and the other lenders did in fact rely upon the audited financial statements in making the loan.

In March, 1998, an accounting fraud was discovered and Philip re-stated its financial statements. Ultimately, Philip defaulted on the loan, became insolvent, and was re-structured. The syndicate of lenders lost U.S. $524 million.

The litigation

In 2000, Philip's Receiver and Manager, CIBC, and High River Limited Partnership (which had purchased some of Philip's debt from members of the leading syndicate) commenced actions against Deloitte and Deloitte International. The claim by the Receiver and Manager against Deloitte is for breach of contract and negligence. The lenders brought a class action against Deloitte and Deloitte International for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation with respect to the 1995 and 1996 audits. The two actions were later consolidated.

Deloitte and Deloitte International moved against the lenders for partial summary judgment for dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim on the basis that the auditors owed no duty of care to the lenders. No motion was brought with respect to the claims made by the Receiver and Manager.

(a) Claim against Deloitte

For the purpose of the motion only, Deloitte conceded that its work was negligent. Therefore, the sole issue before the motions judge was whether it owed the lenders a duty of care. The motions judge found that on that issue alone, there was little evidence in dispute because of the admissions made by Deloitte about its knowledge. The motions judge found that there was no duty of care because, applying the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hercules Managements:

  1. Deloitte did not know the identities of the members of the syndicate of lenders. It knew only that there would be a syndicate of lenders, not the size or composition of them. Only knowledge of the identities of the members of the syndicate by Deloitte would address indeterminacy concerns. Deloitte did not have that knowledge until August, 1997, months after it had issued its February, 1997, audit opinion.
  2. Deloitte did not conduct its audit or issue its audit opinion for the purpose of having the audited financial statements read by the lenders. Knowing that the lenders would rely upon the audited financial statements was not sufficient to address concerns about indeterminate liability. Between 1994 and 1997, Philips loans had increased from about U.S. $200 million to U.S. $1.5 billion for the purpose of acquisitions of almost 50 businesses and there were other efforts to raise capital as well, including issuing shares and divestitures of businesses.

There was no significance to the fact that Deloitte did not disclaim liability for the use of the audited financial statements; one need not disclaim a liability that one does not have. Further, the motions judge found that the alleged misrepresentations in the audited financial statements that were said to be breaches of the duty of care occurred before there were even discussions with CIBC for the U.S. $1.5 billion loan. Those discussions began in April, 1997, two months after the audit opinion was issued.

(b) Claim against Deloitte International

Deloitte International had no relationship with CIBC and played no active role in the audits. It made no representations to CIBC and CIBC did not rely upon anything Deloitte International did. It owed no duty of care to CIBC.

Further, the motions judge found that there was no basis for a finding of vicarious liability. The evidence was that there was no principal/agent, employer/employee, or partnership relationship between Deloitte and Deloitte International

lerners.ca/articles:commerciallitigation

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Lisa C. Munro
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions