UK: The Further Rise Of The “Illegality Defence” In Corporate Fraud Cases

Last Updated: 8 October 2009
Article by James Roberts and Ivan Wilkinson

The latest ruling in the US Parmalat litigation has dismissed claims against Grant Thornton and Bank of America on the grounds that the claimant Parmalat companies were themselves involved in the underlying frauds. Coming so soon after the decision of the UK House of Lords in Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens, this further raises the profile of the "illegality defences" available to professionals sued in the context of corporate frauds, both in the UK and the US – a welcome development in today's difficult economic climate.


Parmalat is, notoriously, the Italian dairy conglomerate which collapsed in December 2003, following the discovery of a massive fraud. In order to keep the company going, to conceal their own wrongdoings, and maintain the inflow of investment, insiders at Parmalat created a web of fictitious transactions and dubious off-shore entities, resulting in multi-billion dollar overstatements of the group's net assets.

Numerous lawsuits have followed both as class actions under US securities legislation and also brought by various Parmalat companies themselves, at the instance of the office-holders now running them, following reorganisation/insolvency procedures.

These have included claims against Bank of America (BoA) which advised on many of Parmalat's financing and restructuring transactions, and which was alleged to have been complicit in the fraud.

Claims have also been made against Grant Thornton International (GTI) and the US member firm of Grant Thornton (GT US), arising from the audit of Parmalat by the Italian member firm of Grant Thornton (GT Italy). Although the alleged wrongdoing was that of GT Italy, plaintiffs have claimed that GTI and GT US are vicariously liable for GT Italy's acts.

Earlier this year, GTI and GT US sought to have various claims against them summarily dismissed on the basis that they could not be held vicariously liable for the work of GT Italy. The judge, however, refused to dismiss the claims on a summary judgment basis, ruling that there was enough evidence potentially to justify findings that both: (a) GT Italy was an agent of GTI, because the latter controlled how GT Italy performed the Parmalat audit; and (b) GTI was in turn an agent of GT US, because the latter had significant power and control over GTI. The cases against both GTI and GT US were therefore allowed to proceed to trial.

That ruling was consistent with the earlier US rulings relating to Banco Spirito Santo (2008) and Parmalat (January 2009), in which the US courts refused, for similar reasons, summarily to dismiss claims against, respectively, the international umbrella organisations BDO International BV (BDOI) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu1. In the Banco Spirito Santo case, BDOI was, however, in July of this year successful at trial in persuading a Florida jury that it did not have a principal-agency relationship with the network's US firm, BDO Seidman, and hence that BDOI was not vicariously liable for a $521.7m award made against the US firm. But because that issue was decided by a jury, there is no written judgment recording the reasons for the decision, and it is difficult to predict how other accountancy organisations would fare at trial on different facts - and with different juries.

The new ruling

Last month, New York judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed, on an entirely different basis, claims brought on behalf of two Parmalat companies against BoA and GTI/GT US. The defendants were successful in obtaining summary judgment based on the US law doctrine "in pari delicto" which prevents a party from suing others for a wrong in which it has itself participated. More specifically:

  • where the plaintiff is a company, this defence is based on the argument that misconduct by the company's agent, committed in the scope of his employment, must be attributed to the company; but
  • there is an exception, known as the "adverse interest rule" which provides that the misconduct will not be attributed to the principal (the company) where the agent's actions are adverse to the interests of the principal.

Importantly, many US states do not apply the adverse interest exception in situations where the agent's actions, however selfinterested, also conferred some benefit on the principal. In other words they only apply the exception in situations where the agent totally abandoned the principal's interests.

Judge Kaplan held (applying Illinois and North Carolina law) that in this case Parmalat's employees and officers had been conducting the work of Parmalat by growing and expanding the business, and that the Parmalat employees' fraudulent activities should be attributed to the claimant companies themselves. He therefore ruled that the claims against both BoA and GTI/GT US should fail because of the "in pari delicto" principle.

In coming to this conclusion, the judge rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that "looting" and squandering by company officers and employees of even a small portion of the corporate assets would be sufficient to establish the adverse interest exception. He ruled that an employee may steal from a company while also doing the company's business and that to accept the plaintiffs' argument "would gut the "in pari delicto" defense altogether".

Whilst this ruling is likely to be of assistance to auditors, and other professionals, facing US claims from their client companies, it should be noted that the "in pari delicto" principle is only likely to be effective as a defence to claims brought by the client company itself, but not in the context of shareholder class actions.

Comparison with the UK position

The above invites comparison with the recent UK House of Lords decision in Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens, in which the defendant auditors were also: (a) sued by a company which had been subject to fraudulent management; (b) successful in arguing that the fraudulent activities of individuals running the company should be attributed to the company itself; and hence (c) held not to be liable because of a principle that the company could not claim losses arising from its own wrongful acts.

That said, there are many differences between the law relating to professional liability in, respectively, England and the US. It is especially notable, in the present context, that the "illegality" principle, as applied to claims against auditors under UK law, is much narrower than the "in pari delicto" principle applied by Judge Kaplan:

  • The UK House of Lords suggests that the illegality principle will only apply in relation to claims against auditors of companies both managed and owned exclusively by the fraudster. In other words, in the case of "one man companies" where the directing mind and will of the company is also its owner, and where there are in effect no honest individuals (either as owners or management) to whom the auditor could have reported the fraud.
  • On the other hand, the US "in pari delicto" principle, as applied in Parmalat, is much wider, since it can potentially be applied in the context of bigger corporate entities, including those with some "innocent" management and/or shareholders, provided that the employees' fraudulent acts did at least in some respect serve the company (rather than representing a total abandonment of the company's interests).

Although the illegality defence is narrower under UK law, there are nevertheless other considerable benefits for professionals under UK law, such as the general absence in the UK of any shareholder right of action against auditors. In the UK, it would simply not have been possible to bring the parallel Parmalat shareholder class action that will continue in the US unaffected by this latest strike out.


The possibility of fraud in client companies is clearly one of the biggest liability risks facing both auditors and other professional advisors, as recessionary conditions both unmask existing frauds and act as a stimulus for new ones. According to the latest KPMG fraud barometer, over 160 cases of serious fraud came to court in the first half of this year with a total value of £636 million. This is the highest number of cases in a six month period in the 21 year history of the barometer, which shows just how much truth lies behind the now well known Warren Buffet quote about swimming naked when the tide goes out.

Judge Kaplan's recent decision, therefore, provides good news for audit firms. It demonstrates the availability of a valuable extra line of defence in US corporate fraud cases, and one which, for the largest audit firms, will be particularly welcome given the ongoing uncertainty about the involvement and exposure of accountants' umbrella organisations.

Transatlantic legal comparisons can be intriguing, if not always wholly instructive. However, whilst the UK "illegality" principle as applied by the House of Lords in Stone & Rolls, is considerably narrower than the equivalent US defence that succeeded in the Parmalat case, it should not be ruled out as a valuable weapon for those defending UK professionals facing unmeritorious claims. Given the huge squeeze on the economy at present, and given that there are over two million UK companies and 8,000 firms auditing those companies, the experience of "one man" companies riddled with fraud is, unfortunately, unlikely to be unique to Stone & Rolls.


1 See previous BLG briefing note dated February 2009,

"Are umbrellas stormproof?", available on our website.

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

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

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.