The SEC's action seeking to compel the production of
documents from the Chinese affiliate of Deloitte and Touche is moving toward
resolution. The Court rejected a request by the audit firm for a stay pending
the resolution of a Commission administrative proceeding which is based on
similar issues. SEC v. Deloitte Touche Tohmasu CPA, Ltd., Civil Action
No. 11-mc-512 (D.D.C. Ruling dated April 22, 2013 ("subpoena enforcement
The subpoena enforcement action: The
subpoena enforcement action seeks an order requiring the production of PRC
based audit work papers held by Deloitte Touche Tohmasu relating the audit of a
Chinese issuer. Although the firm is registered with the PCAOB and the Sarbanes
Oxley Act requires the production of work papers by registrants on request, the
audit firm has refused to produce the material citing Chinese law which
generally precludes such production absent consent.
The SEC secured a stay early in the proceeding because of
a possible negotiated resolution, the agency later sought and obtained an end
to that order when the discussions collapsed. Subsequently, the audit firm
requested a stay based on related administrative proceedings in which similar
but not identical issues are being considered. Initially the firm requested a
stay until motions to dismiss were resolved. Later that request was modified
and a stay was sought until the conclusion of the proceeding.
Related proceedings: There
are two related administrative proceedings. The first was also brought against
the Deloitte PRC based affiliated under Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice. That proceeding is predicated on the refusal of the audit firm to
produce work papers from a different audit. The relief sought is sanctions. In
the Matter of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants, Ltd., Adm.
Proc. File No. 3-14872 (May 9, 2012)("D&T proceeding").
The second, filed during the term of the stay in the subpoena
enforcement action, is a so-called "industry wide" administrative proceeding
brought against the PRC based affiliates of five international accounting
firms. In the Matter of BDO China Dahua CPA Co., Ltd., Adm. Proc. File
No. 3-15116 (Dec. 3, 2012)("industry wide action"). That action is essentially
the same as the D&T proceeding. It is based on alleged violations of Rule
102(e) of the Rules of Practice and the failure of the Respondents, all PCAOB
registered audit firms, to produce requested audit work papers as required by
the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Sanctions are sought. In this case the Respondents
claim service is improper.
Rejecting the stay request: The
Court denied the request of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu for two reasons. First,
there is no real hardship for the audit firm to litigate both cases
simultaneously, contrary to its claim. There is little overlap in the actions.
Each seeks a different remedy. In the subpoena enforcement action only the
production of the work papers is sought. In the industry wide action, in
contrast, sanctions are being requested not the production of work papers.
Thus, not only is there minimal overlap, but there is also little potential for
inconsistent adjudications since any appeals would go to the same court of appeals.
Second, balancing the interests of the parties counsels
in favor of proceeding and against delay. Here the SEC has an interest in
moving forward expeditiously. This proceeding is part of an on-going law
enforcement investigation. The agency has an obligation to proceed with its
In contrast, any delay until the conclusion of the
industry wide administrative proceeding could be lengthy. Although that case is
to be completed within 300 days under the Commission's Order, since
jurisdictional issues are being raised it is possible that service would have
to be effected through the Hague Convention which can be a lengthy process.
Likewise, the final resolution of the proceeding may not take place until the
conclusion of appeals. Such a delay could be harmful to the Commission's
investigation thus arguing against a stay. Accordingly, after considering the
interests of each party the Court concluded that the proceeding should move
For more commentary on developing securities
issues, visit SEC Actions, a blog by Thomas
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.