Accountants, business lobby group IBEC and the trade union movement have expressed "concern" about elements of the new Company Law Enforcement Act.
In submissions to the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr Paul Appleby, they queried the scope of auditors' and liquidators' duties outlined in four consultation papers on the Act. More than 50 responses to Mr Appleby's papers were released yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act.
Among them, the largest accounting firm in the State, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), claimed elements of the paper were "unnecessarily confusing". PwC was concerned that Mr Appleby's interpretation may not fairly reflect the scope of auditors' reporting duty regarding suspected offences by company directors.
In a 26-page document, the company said: "We believe that the consultation paper, which suggests that the scope of the auditors' reporting duty includes suspected indictable offences the directors or agents of the company have committed in a capacity other than director or agent of the company under audit, does not describe the scope of the auditor's actual duty fairly in this regard."
It added: "We do not believe that company auditors would be empowered by the Companies' Acts to obtain information relating to other companies or actions by directors or agents outside their capacity as directors or agents of the company being audited."
Deloitte & Touche said the consultation paper "extended" auditors' responsibilities by requiring them to assess information that would not have been part of the process before the Act was implemented.
The areas that extended such responsibility were requirements to incorporate additional information when assessing accounts. Such information would be obtained from non-audit services, or prior to appointment as auditor, or outside the audit by the auditor or audit team.
In an eight-page paper, Deloitte & Touche said the guidelines should not extend to such requirements. It added: "Our understanding of the Act is that the auditor is required to report information that comes into his or her possession as part of the undertaking of an audit and does not have an obligation to seek out possible indictable offences as part of the process."
IBEC made only a very general comment about the scope of auditors' duties. In a two-page letter, its business law council welcomed the consultation for its clarity.
In respect of auditors' duties, it added: "There is the potential for quite a heavy workload arising from [the reporting requirements\] and we believe it is important not to place unnecessary burdens on auditors and indeed on your own office. We would point to the experience of the early days of the Competition Authority when they were inundated with notifications, most of which were unnecessary and simply placed huge restrictions on the proper operation of the authority."
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions expressed dissatisfaction that the Act did not give Mr Appleby's office the power to seek the appointment of a court-appointed liquidator.
In relation to auditors, it noted that reporting obligations did not extend to companies formed outside the State.
An insolvency practitioner, Mr Martin V Ferris, said the ingenuity of certain directors in trying to avoid their legal obligations to creditors was "quite startling".
He said: "In my experience, dishonest directors have generally been unconcerned about whether or not they are restricted under [the Act\].
"Of much more concern to them would be the discovery by the liquidator of hard facts regarding fraudulent transactions or misappropriation of assets."
