United States: Added Comfort

Last Updated: July 21 2014
Article by David Neuville

Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2018

In almost every capital markets securities offering, a significant amount of time and party resources are spent on conducting a thorough due diligence investigation into the affairs of the issuer.

This covers, among other things, its business, operations, financial status, legal affairs, management and controlling parties. The process has two principle purposes, one positive and the other more defensive. First, it helps the parties prepare a comprehensive offering document accurately conveying the issuer's strengths and potential. Second, it provides the basis for parties with potential exposure to securities fraud claims to establish a due diligence defence (if called upon to do so). This defence sees them produce sufficient background work to demonstrate that they used reasonable care to ensure the offering document did not include, and meaning they should not be legally responsible for, any material omission or misstatement.

One of the core elements of the due diligence defence is the auditors' comfort letter. This letter is addressed to the underwriters, and sometimes certain other persons, and provides positive and negative assurances regarding the issuer's financial position, the results of its operations, and the accuracy of reporting of financial information in the offering document.

However, many audit firms – for some time – have refused to address such letters to issuers. This is on the ground that issuers are strictly liable for material misstatements and omissions in their offering documents, cannot avail themselves of a due diligence defence, and therefore have no need for the protection of a comfort letter. There is also a great deal of inconsistency among and within audit firms (perhaps more so outside the US) on whether to address letters to issuers or their boards of directors, and whether either should be a formal addressee as opposed to simply being provided a copy of the letter.

Unregistered securities offerings, which rely on exemptions under rule 144A or section 4(a)(2) of the US Securities Act of 1933, create special considerations. As a result of (not all that recent) changes in the interpretation of US securities laws, issuers of securities in unregistered offerings should no longer be subject to strict liability for material misstatements or omissions in an offering document. They should also not be in a position that is structurally different from any other party with potential liability for securities fraud. In light of this, there is no longer any conceptual basis for auditors to decline to include their clients – the issuers – as addressees of their comfort letters. Therefore, issuers should try to insist on being so addressed.

Due diligence defence

More than any other provision in US law, section 11(b) of the Securities Act comes the closest to spelling out the details of the due diligence defence (without anywhere using the term). It is also clear on two other points: the issuer does not have such a defence; and the section relates only to registered offerings.

Like section 11, section 12 of the Securities Act deals with untrue statements of material fact and omissions to state such facts. But unlike section 11, section 12:

  • covers 'any person' who takes certain actions, rather than a specific laundry list of parties who may be sued;
  • refers to 'a prospectus or oral communication' rather than a registration statement; and
  • does not specifically exclude issuers from the parties that may take advantage of the limitation on liability set out in the section.

In addition, historically there were two widely held assumptions regarding section 12. First, while the language drew no distinction between issuers and other persons, as a practical matter issuers would have great difficulty proving they could not have known, in the exercise of reasonable care, of a material misstatement or omission about themselves. Second, the reference to 'prospectus' (rather than 'registration statement') meant section 12 also applied to exempt offerings rather than only registered ones. As such, the practical understanding was that section 12 effectively extended the gist of section 11 to offerings exempt from registration. This included private placements under section 4(a)(2), rule 144A offerings, and possibly even offshore transactions within Regulation S under the Securities Act.

The market's understanding of section 12 changed in 1995, with the US Supreme Court's decision in Gustafson v Alloyd Co, Inc, 513 US 561 (1995). In Gustafson, a company's shareholders sold all of its shares to a purchaser in a private transaction. The company's post-closing financial statements revealed variations between estimated and actual valuations, and the contract of sale entitled the purchaser to a price adjustment. However, rather than accept the adjustment, the purchaser raised a claim of securities fraud under section 12(a)(2) (then section 12(2)). This was based on the theory that breaches of representations and warranties in the purchase contract constituted material misstatements or omissions in a 'prospectus' for purposes of section 12, entitling the purchaser to rescission of the transaction (the statutory remedy) rather than a mere price adjustment (the contractual remedy). In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that 'prospectus' as used in section 12 referred to a statutory prospectus included in a registration statement (and that therefore the purchaser had no basis to claim that the contract of sale constituted a prospectus). From that date, it has no longer been the accepted view that section 12 applies to exempt offerings or, therefore, creates a strict liability standard for issuers in such offerings. And, of course, section 11 is explicitly inapplicable in this context.

Given they can't rely on sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act to raise a securities fraud claim regarding an exempt securities offering, private plaintiffs are effectively left with only one option under federal securities law: a claim under rule 10b-5 under the US Securities Exchange Act. Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful:

'for any person, directly or indirectly...(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading...in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.'

The law has developed in such a way that bringing a successful rule 10b-5 claim is a complicated matter. But it is also the case that: the rule covers 'any person', and does not distinguish between issuers and other parties; and it relates to 'the purchase or sale of any security', so is clearly not influenced by whether a transaction is registered or exempt from registration. Therefore, unlike sections 11 or 12, rule 10b-5 seems broad enough to cover claims of securities fraud in connection with exempt transactions under section 4(a)(2) and rule 144A. It even seems to cover offerings within the safe harbour for offshore offerings of Regulation S, although the possibility of raising a successful claim in a US court – in relation to an offshore offering – is highly uncertain. This has become even more uncertain recently as a result of Morrison v National Australia Bank Ltd 561 US 247 (2010). In this case, the US Supreme Court specifically declined to extend the reach of rule 10b-5 to cover statements by non-US companies whose securities are listed solely on non-US stock exchanges in the context of offshore purchases of securities by non-US investors.

Rule 10b-5 claims

The significant jurisdictional and merit-related requirements of a successful claim under rule 10b-5 are well documented in US court proceedings. In terms of substance, to succeed a plaintiff must plead, and prove, a number of elements of a claim. These include: the existence of a material misstatement or omission; reliance on such misstatement or omission; the misstatement or omission's causation of harm to the plaintiff; the extent of the loss or damage; and scienter, the defendant's knowledge of the deceit or recklessness in allowing it to occur.

There is no formal due diligence defence to a rule 10b-5 claim. However it has been noted that if a defendant is able to show it exercised reasonable care, then it is highly unlikely that a plaintiff will be able to prove recklessness or, barring actual intent to deceive, scienter. One could argue that an issuer defendant's difficulty in refuting recklessness (regarding a material misstatement or omission) is similar to its task in proving it exercised reasonable care (notwithstanding such misstatement or omission) in defending a section 12 claim. This would, as a practical matter, be akin to strict liability. But there is not a wide body of precedent or legal scholarship suggesting an issuer would be unable to defeat the element of scienter merely because its offering document did, in fact, contain a material misstatement or omission. If this were the case, scienter would not need to be an element of a rule 10b-5 claim brought against an issuer. In other words, it appears that there is a space along the spectrum between recklessness and exercising reasonable care/doing due diligence, and an issuer whose activities fall into this space would not be liable in a rule 10b-5 action. As such, even without the per se due diligence defence, it is clearly in a defendant's best interest to be able to show that it endeavored to avoid any material mistake or omission in an offering document.

Since rule 10b-5 relates to activity by 'any person', there is no basis for an assumption that issuers are somehow in a different position than other participants in an offering. All defendants in a rule 10b-5 action have an interest in refuting their scienter and showing that they acted without recklessness. Whether it is easier to prove recklessness on the part of an issuer (the 'owner' of most of the material information) than on the part of a third party (such as a director or underwriter) has little to do with whether an issuer defendant is entitled to use all available means to defend against a claim of recklessness. A comfort letter is obtained to defend against any rule 10b-5 claim, and support the view that the party did not act recklessly by seeking assurance about the accuracy of financial disclosure. It also shows the absence of material adverse changes in the issuer's financial position or results since the last audit or review. This purpose is the same irrespective of the party's identity.

SAS 72 and analogous Standards

While comfort letters in securities offerings can take many different forms, they generally originate from the Statement on Auditing Standards No 72, issued by the Auditing Standards Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants in February 1993.

Registered offerings were clearly foremost in the minds of SAS 72's authors, though the Statement also clearly contemplates the delivery of comfort letters in the context of exempt offerings. In light of it being pre-Gustafson, it focuses on Securities Act liability (principally section 11, and since it does cover exempt transactions and was issued pre-Gustafson, presumably section 12 also) and not on the Securities Exchange Act or rule 10b-5. However, as noted above, rule 10b-5 is now the primary expression of the US antifraud standards with respect to an exempt transaction. As such, the scope of SAS 72 needs to be viewed in this light. Paragraph 24 of SAS 72, 'Addressee', states: 'The letter should not be addressed or given to any parties other than the client [(usually, but not always, the issuer)] and the named underwriters, broker-dealer, financial intermediary or buyer or seller'. The remainder of the Statement contains no discussion whatsoever as to the propriety of addressing a letter to an issuer or the value to such issuer of being such an addressee. But given the text of paragraph 24 and its accompanying footnote (which illustrates a form of address that includes the issuer as addressee), it is hard to see how an auditor could argue that the issuer is an inappropriate addressee of the comfort letter. The fact that it may now be more likely that a comfort letter can be of actual assistance to an issuer in defending against a securities fraud claim is hardly a reason to reject the original willingness to make issuers addressees.


Many of the world's largest audit firms are trying to limit and control their potential risks while simultaneously expanding their businesses, both geographically and in absolute terms. As a result, they are certainly not looking to increase their risk, such as by making a global policy change to add issuers as addressees of comfort letters in capital markets offerings exempt from registration under the Securities Act. Nevertheless, it seems that there is both reason for issuers to request this, and scope within the auditors' own standards for them to meet such requests. The importance of being a comfort letter addressee in defeating a rule 10b-5 securities fraud claim is uncertain, but there should be some value, and there is no reason to avoid pressing the point. Issuers and their counsel should begin to make these requests in exempt offerings.

Originally published in IFLR - July/August 2014

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
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.


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.


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