Ph.d.-afhandling summary

SUMMARY

This Ph.D. thesis deals with going concern in a legal perspective. The thesis focuses on the manage-
ment’s and the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern. Thus, the purpose of the thesis is to
carry out an analysis of the management’s and the auditor’s responsibility in this area in a legal perspec-
tive.

With regard to the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern, the thesis deals with the
regulation of the going concern assumption and hence the management’s responsibility in relation to
going concern according to accounting law, the management’s actual responsibility in this area accord-
ing to accounting law, including the management’s assessment of going concern and the importance of
the going concern assumption for the annual report, the management’s responsibility in relation to go-
ing concern according to company law, the connection between the going concern assumption and
hence the going concern concept according to accounting law, the concepts of financial position and
loss of capital according to company law as well as the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy
law, the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to law of torts as well as
the connection between the management’s responsibility in this are area according to accounting law,
company law and law of torts, respectively.

With regard to the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern, the thesis deals with the regula-
tion of the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to auditing law, the auditor’s
actual responsibility in this area according to auditing law, including the auditor’s assessment of and
reporting about going concern, as well as the connection between the management’s and the auditor’s
responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively.

The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 contains the introduction. Chapter 2 deals with the going
concern assumption and the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to
accounting law, company law and law of torts, respectively. Chapter 3 deals with the auditor’s responsi-
bility in this area according to auditing law. Chapter 4 deals with decisions and judgments about the
management’s and/or the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting
and auditing law, respectively. Chapter 5 contains the conclusion.

The thesis consists of two volumes. Volume 1 contains the five chapters as well as the Danish abstract
and the present summary. Volume 2 contains the appendices and the service sections. The service sec-
tions comprise lists of abbreviations, literature as well as decisions and judgments, respectively.

The content of chapter 2-5 is elaborated below.

As mentioned, chapter 2 deals with the going concern assumption and the management’s responsibility
in relation to going concern according to accounting law, company law and law of torts, respectively.
The purpose of this chapter is to carry out an analysis of this responsibility.

In the chapter, some general remarks about the connection between the going concern concept ac-
counting to accounting law and hence the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern
according to company law, the concepts of financial position and loss of capital according to company
law and hence the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to company law,
the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy law as well as the management’s responsibility in
relation to going concern according to law of torts are first made. Next, the regulation of the going

693

Summary

concern assumption and hence the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according
to accounting law is accounted for. Next, this responsibility is analysed. Next, the management’s re-
sponsibility in relation to going concern according to company law is analysed. Next, the connection
between the going concern assumption and hence the going concern concept according to accounting
law, the concepts of financial position and loss of capital according to company law as well as the con-
cept of insolvency according to bankruptcy law is analysed. Next, the management’s responsibility in
relation to going concern according to law of torts is analysed. Next, the connection between the man-
agement’s responsibility in this area according to accounting law, company law and law of torts, respec-
tively, is analysed. Finally, the chapter and hence the analysis of this responsibility is summarised.

It is important to be aware of the fact that going concern is not a company law and law of torts concept
but an accounting and auditing concept. Thus, the management’s responsibility in relation to going
concern according to company law and law of torts, respectively, is not a direct responsibility in relation
to going concern but an indirect responsibility in relation to, for example, the company’s financial posi-
tion and a possible loss of capital as well as a possible suspension of the company’s operations. In that
connection, reference can be made to the Danish Private Companies Act (AL) paragraph 54, section 3,
first sentence, as well as the new Companies Act (SL) paragraph 115, item 5, paragraph 116, item 5, and
paragraph 118, section 2, which deal with the company’s financial position as well as AL paragraph 69a
and SL paragraph 119, which deal with loss of capital. On the other hand, the management’s responsi-
bility in relation to going concern according to accounting law is a direct responsibility in relation to
going concern.

It is evident from the section on the connection between the going concern assumption and hence the
going concern concept according to accounting law, the concepts of financial position and loss of capi-
tal according to company law and hence the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern
according to company law, the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy law as well as the man-
agement’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to law of torts that this connection gen-
erally consists in the fact that all these concepts and areas of responsibility are, in different ways, related
to the continuation of the enterprise’s or – in the case of an enterprise that is operated as a company –
the company’s operations.

It is evident from the section on the regulation of the going concern assumption and hence the man-
agement’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting law that the going con-
cern assumption and hence the management’s responsibility in this area according to accounting law is
regulated in both the Danish accounting regulation, the community law accounting regulation, the in-
ternational accounting regulation in the form of the regulation from the IASB and the American ac-
counting regulation in the form of the regulation from the FASB etc. In that connection, the going
concern assumption and hence the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according
to accounting law is regulated at both the level of legislation and directives, the level of guidelines and
standards as well as the level of frameworks. However, the going concern assumption is not mentioned
in the FASB’s framework.

It is evident from the section on the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according
to accounting law, that this responsibility can be divided into the management’s assessment of going
concern and the importance of the going concern assumption for the annual report. The importance of
the going concern assumption for the annual report represents the management’s reporting about going
concern because this reporting is expressed in the annual report. In that connection, the management’s
assessment of going concern leads to the management’s reporting about going concern, which, con-
versely, is the result of the management’s assessment of going concern.

694

Summary

It is evident from the section on the management’s assessment of going concern, that this assessment
can be divided into a number of important elements. These important elements can be analysed across
the regulation of the going concern assumption and hence the management’s responsibility in relation
to going concern according to accounting law.

The first important element in the management’s assessment of going concern is the management’s
pro- or reactive assessment of going concern. Here, the question is whether the management’s assess-
ment of going concern is pro- or reactive in nature, that is, whether the management is always required
to make an assessment of going concern or it is sufficient that the management makes such an assess-
ment if there are circumstances that indicate that there are going concern problems.

The second important element in the management’s assessment of going concern is the level of this
assessment. The level of the management’s assessment of going concern is related to the level on which
the management is required to assess the presence of the going concern assumption. Here, the question
is whether the management is required to assess the presence of the going concern assumption on the
enterprise or the activity level.

The third important element in the management’s assessment of going concern is the timing of and the
time horizon for this assessment. Here, the question is partly whether the management’s assessment of
going concern is required to be made on the balance sheet date or the date of the management’s ap-
proval of the annual report, partly which time horizon that is required to be used in connection with
this assessment, for example, at least 12 months from the balance sheet date or the date of the man-
agement’s approval of the annual report.

The fourth important element in the management’s assessment of going concern is the content of this
assessment. The content of the management’s assessment of going concern is related to which circum-
stances the management is required to include in this assessment.

The fifth and final important element in the management’s assessment of going concern is the belief
criterion for the management’s assessment of going concern. The belief criterion for the management’s
assessment of going concern is related to which degree of belief with the management that is necessary
in order for the annual report to be prepared on a going concern basis.

The importance of the going concern assumption for the annual report is not mentioned any further in
this connection.

It is evident from the section on the connection between the going concern assumption and hence the
going concern concept according to accounting law, the concepts of financial position and loss of capi-
tal according to company law as well as the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy law that
there – not surprisingly – are both similarities and differences between these concepts. These similari-
ties and differences can be identified by comparing the concepts of financial position and loss of capital
according to company law as well as the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy law with the
important elements in the management’s assessment of going concern.

The similarities between the concepts are, among other things, related to the connection between the
management’s pro- or reactive assessment of going concern as well as the concepts of financial position
and loss of capital according to company law.

695

Summary

On the other hand, the differences between the concepts are related to the connection between the
level of the management’s assessment of going concern, the concepts of financial position and loss of
capital according to company law as well as the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy law, the
connection between the timing of the management’s assessment of going concern as well as the con-
cepts of financial position and loss of capital according to company law, the connection between the
time horizon for the management’s assessment of going concern, the concepts of financial position and
loss of capital according to company law as well as the concept of insolvency according to bankruptcy
law and the connection between the content of the management’s assessment of going concern, the
concepts of financial position and loss of capital according to company law as well as the concept of
insolvency according to bankruptcy law.

Besides these similarities and differences between the concepts, it is, of course, important to be aware
of the general connection between the concepts, which, as mentioned, consists in the fact that all the
concepts are, in different ways, related to the continuation of the enterprise’s or – in the case of an en-
terprise that is operated as a company – the company’s operations, and which, by far, seems to over-
shadow the differences between the concepts.

Similarly, it is evident from the section on the connection between the management’s responsibility in
relation to going concern according to accounting law, company law and law of torts, respectively, that
there – not surprisingly – are both similarities and differences between these areas of responsibility.
These similarities and differences can be identified by comparing the management’s responsibility in
relation to going concern according to company law and law of torts, respectively, with the important
elements in the management’s assessment of going concern.

The similarities between the areas of responsibility are, among other things, related to the connection
between the management’s pro- or reactive assessment of going concern as well as the management’s
responsibility in relation to going concern according to company law and law of torts, respectively.

On the other hand, the differences between the concepts are related to the connection between the
level of, the timing of, the time horizon for and the content of the management’s assessment of going
concern as well as the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to company
law and law of torts, respectively.

Besides these similarities and differences between the areas of responsibility, it is, of course, important
to be aware of the general connection and hence similarity between the areas of responsibility, which,
as mentioned, consists in the fact that all the areas of responsibility are, in different ways, related to the
continuation of the enterprise’s or – in the case of an enterprise that is operated as a company – the
company’s operations, and which, by far, seems to overshadow the differences between the areas of
responsibility.

As mentioned, chapter 3 deals with the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to
auditing law. The purpose of this chapter is to carry out an analysis of this responsibility.

Thus, the differences between chapter 2 and 3 are partly related to the fact that chapter 2 deals with the
management’s responsibility in relation to going concern, whereas chapter 3 deals with the auditor’s
responsibility in this area, partly related to the fact that chapter 2 deals not only with the management’s
responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting law but also with the management’s
responsibility in this area according to company law and law of torts, respectively, whereas chapter 3, as
a starting point, deals only with the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to

696

Summary

auditing law. This is partly due to the fact that it makes no sense to talk about the auditor’s responsibil-
ity in this area according to company law, partly due to the fact that the auditor’s responsibility in rela-
tion to going concern according to law of torts – even though is actually makes sense to talk about this
responsibility – is, to a great extent, in accordance with the auditor’s responsibility in this area according
to auditing law. Thus, the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to law of torts
is implicitly dealt with together with the auditor’s responsibility in this area according to auditing law.
On the other hand, the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to company
law and law of torts, respectively, is, to a much lesser extent, in accordance with the management’s re-
sponsibility in this area according to accounting law. Besides the auditor’s responsibility according to
auditing law and law of torts, respectively, it is also possibly to talk about the auditor’s responsibility in
relation to going concern according to disciplinary law. Just like the auditor’s responsibility according to
law of torts, the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to disciplinary law is, to a
great extent, in accordance with the auditor’s responsibility in this area according to auditing law. Thus,
just like the auditor’s responsibility according the law of torts, the auditor’s responsibility in relation to
going concern according to disciplinary law is implicitly dealt with together with the auditor’s responsi-
bility in this area according to auditing law. On the other hand, it makes no sense to talk about the
management’s responsibility according to disciplinary law – neither generally nor in relation to going
concern.

In chapter 3, some general remarks about the connection between the management’s and the auditor’s
responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, are
first made. Next, a few remarks about good auditor practice are made. Next, the regulation of the audi-
tor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to auditing law is accounted for. Next, this
responsibility is analysed. Next, the connection between the management’s and the auditor’s responsi-
bility in relation to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, is analysed.
Next, a few remarks about the auditor’s responsibility in this area according to law of torts and discipli-
nary law, respectively, are made. Finally, this chapter and hence the analysis of the auditor’s responsibil-
ity in relation to going concern according to auditing law is summarised.

It is evident from the section on the regulation of the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going con-
cern according to auditing law, that this responsibility is regulated in both the Danish auditing regula-
tion, the international auditing regulation in the form of the regulation from the IAASB as well as the
American auditing regulation in the form of the regulation from the ASB etc. and the PCAOB, respec-
tively. In that connection, the responsibility is regulated at both the level of legislation, the level of
standards and the level of statements and interpretations. On the other hand, the responsibility is not
regulated in the community law auditing regulation.

It is evident from the section on the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to
auditing law, that this responsibility can be divided into the auditor’s assessment of and reporting about
going concern. In that connection, the auditor’s assessment of going concern leads to the auditor’s re-
porting about going concern, which, conversely, is the result of the auditor’s assessment of going con-
cern.

It is evident from the section on the auditor’s assessment of going concern, that this assessment can be
divided into a number of important elements. These important elements can be analysed across the
regulation of the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to auditing law.

The first important element in the auditor’s assessment of going concern is the auditor’s pro- or reac-
tive assessment of going concern. Here, the question is whether the auditor’s assessment of going con-

697

Summary

cern is pro- or reactive in nature, that is, whether the auditor is always required to make an assessment
of going concern or it is sufficient that the auditor makes such an assessment if there are circumstances
that indicate that there are going concern problems.

The second important element in the auditor’s assessment of going concern is the level of this assess-
ment. The level of the auditor’s assessment of going concern is related to the level on which the auditor
is required to assess the presence of the going concern assumption. Here, the question is whether the
auditor is required to assess the presence of the going concern assumption on the enterprise or the ac-
tivity level.

The third important element in the auditor’s assessment of going concern is the timing of and the time
horizon for this assessment. Here, the question is partly whether it is sufficient that the auditor makes
an assessment of going concern on the date of the auditor’s issuance of the auditor’s report or it is nec-
essary that the auditor is alert to going concern problems throughout the entire audit process, partly
which time horizon that is required to be used in connection with this assessment, for example, at least
12 months from the balance sheet date or the date of the management’s approval of the annual report
and hence the date of the auditor’s issuance of the auditor’s report.

The fourth important element in the auditor’s assessment of going concern is the content of this as-
sessment. The content of the auditor’s assessment of going concern is related to which circumstances
the auditor is required to include in this assessment.

The fifth and final important element in the auditor’s assessment of going concern is the belief criterion
for this auditor’s assessment. The belief criterion for the auditor’s assessment of going concern is not
dealt with in connection with the analysis of the auditor’s assessment of going concern because this
criterion is instead dealt with in connection with the analysis of the auditor’s reporting about going
concern in the auditor’s report. In that connection, the belief criterion for the auditor’s assessment of
going concern is, of course, referred to as the belief criterion for the auditor’s reporting about going
concern in the auditor’s report, which is, however, the same thing.

As mentioned, just like the auditor’s assessment of going concern, the management’s assessment of
going concern can be divided into a large number of important elements. These important elements are
completely identical to the important elements in the auditor’s assessment of going concern.

It is evident from the section on the auditor’s reporting about going concern, that this reporting can be
divided into the auditor’s external and internal reporting about going concern. The auditor’s external
reporting about going concern comprises the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s
report. The auditor’s internal reporting about going concern comprises the auditor reporting about
going concern in the auditor’s records and the auditor’s other types of internal reporting about going
concern. The auditor’s other types of internal reporting about going concern comprise, among other
things, the auditor’s reporting about going concern at the general meeting and the auditor’s reporting
about going concern at management board meetings and meetings for those charged with governance,
that is the management board, if any, the supervisory board, if any, and the board of directors, respec-
tively.

Just like the auditor’s assessment of going concern, the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the
auditor’s report can be divided into a number of important elements. These important elements can
also be analysed across the regulation of the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern accord-
ing to auditing law.

698

Summary

The first important element in the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s report is the
belief criterion for this reporting. The belief criterion for the auditor’s reporting about going concern in
the auditor’s report is related to which degree of belief with the auditor that is necessary in order for the
auditor not to issue a modified auditor’s report in the form of an auditor’s report with an adverse opin-
ion if the annual report is prepared on a going concern basis.

The second important element in the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s report is
the concept of going concern problems.

The third important element in the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s report is
the neutrality or prudence principle for this reporting. Here, the question is whether a neutrality or a
prudence principle applies to the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s report, that is,
whether the auditor is required to show special prudence in connection with this reporting.

The fourth important element in the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s report is
the formulation of the auditor’s report in relation to going concern.

The auditor’s internal reporting about going concern is not mentioned any further in this connection.

It is evident from the section on the connection between the management’s and the auditor’s responsi-
bility in relation to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, that this con-
nection generally consists in the fact that both the management and the auditor are required to make an
assessment of going concern. Of course, the management’s assessment of going concern is made in
connection with the preparation of presentation of the annual reporting, whereas the auditor’s assess-
ment of going concern is made in connection with the audit of the annual report.

Not surprisingly, there are many similarities but also – at least apparently – a few differences between
the management’s and the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting
and auditing law, respectively. These similarities and differences can be identified by comparing the
important elements in the management’s assessment of going concern with some of the important ele-
ments in the auditor’s assessment of and reporting about going concern in the auditor’s report, respec-
tively.

The similarities between the management’s and the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern
according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, are, among other things, related to the connec-
tion between the management’s and the auditor’s pro- or reactive assessment of going concern, respec-
tively, the connection between the level of the management’s and the auditor’s assessment of going
concern, respectively, the connection between the time horizon for the management’s and the auditor’s
assessment of going concern, respectively, the content of the management’s and the auditor’s assess-
ment of going concern, respectively, and the connection between the belief criterion for the manage-
ment’s assessment of going concern and the auditor’s reporting about going concern in the auditor’s
report, respectively.

On the other hand, the differences between the management’s and the auditor’s responsibility in rela-
tion to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, are, apparently, related to
the connection between the timing of the management’s and the auditor’s assessment of going concern,
respectively. However, even though, as a starting point, the timing of the management’s assessment of
going concern is not in accordance with the timing of the auditor’s assessment of going concern, in

699

Summary

reality, the timing of the management’s assessment of going concern is in accordance with the timing of
the auditor’s assessment of going concern.

As mentioned, chapter 4 deals with decisions and judgments about the management’s and/or the audi-
tor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively.
The purpose of this chapter is to carry out an analysis of the decisions and judgments that exist about
this responsibility. This analysis builds on the analyses of the management’s and the auditor’s responsi-
bility in relation to going concern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, in chapter 2
and 3, respectively.

As mentioned, the differences between chapter 2 and 3 are partly related to the fact that chapter 2 deals
with the management’s responsibility in relation to going concern, whereas chapter 3 deals with the
auditor’s responsibility in this area, partly related the fact that chapter 2 deals not only with the man-
agement’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting law but also with the
management’s responsibility in this area according to company law and law of torts, respectively,
whereas chapter 3, as a starting point, deals only with the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going
concern according to auditing law. On the other hand, the similarity between these chapters is related
to the fact that both chapters are primarily based on the relevant regulation. Thus, the difference be-
tween chapter 2 and 3 as well as chapter 4 is related to the fact that chapter 2 and 3 are primarily based
on the relevant regulation, whereas chapter 4 is primarily based on the relevant legal practice.

In chapter 4, different methodical considerations are first accounted for. Next, the decisions and judg-
ments that exist about the management’s and/or the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going con-
cern according to accounting and auditing law, respectively, are analysed. Finally, this chapter and hence
the analysis of these decisions and judgments is summarised.

The decisions and judgments that are analysed comprise expert opinions in the form of expert opinions
from the Opinion Committee (Responsumudvalget) of the Danish Association of State Authorised
Public Accountants (FSR) and the Danish Association of Registered Public Accountants (FRR), respec-
tively, disciplinary decisions in the form of disciplinary rulings etc. from the Auditor Tribunal (Revi-
sornævnet) (previously the Disciplinary Tribunal for State Authorised and Registered Public Account-
ants – Disciplinærnævnet for Statsautoriserede og Registrerede Revisorer), the former Disciplinary Tri-
bunal for State Authorised Public Accountants (Disciplinærnævnet for Statsautoriserede Revisorer), the
former Disciplinary Tribunal for Registered Public Accountants (Disciplinærnævnet for Registrerede
Revisorer) and the former Auditor Tribunal (the ”old” Auditor Tribunal), respectively, as well as court
judgments in the form of civil liability judgments, among other things.

The court judgments that are analysed deal with both the management’s and the auditor’s responsibility
according to accounting and auditing law, respectively. Some of these judgments deal with the man-
agement’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to accounting law, whereas others deal
with the auditor’s responsibility in this area according to auditing law. Some of the judgments deal with
only the management’s or the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern according to account-
ing and auditing law, respectively, whereas others deal with both the management’s and the auditor’s
responsibility in this area according to accounting and auditing law, respectively.

The expert opinions that are analysed deal primarily with the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going
concern according to auditing law but often also touch on the management’s responsibility in this area
according to accounting law. This is due to the fact that expert opinions deal not only with good audi-

700

Summary

tor practice, including good audit practice, which is, naturally, related only to the auditor, but also with
good accounting practice, which is related not only to the auditor but also to the management.

On the other hand, the disciplinary decisions that are analysed deal, naturally, only with the auditor’s
responsibility in relation to going concern according to auditing law and not with the management’s
responsibility in this area according to accounting law. This is due to the fact that it, as mentioned,
makes no sense to talk about the management’s responsibility according to disciplinary law – neither
generally nor in relation to going concern

As mentioned, the management’s assessment of going concern can be divided into a number of impor-
tant elements, just like the auditor’s assessment of and reporting about going concern in the auditor’s
report, respectively, can be divided into a number of important elements. Some of the decisions and
judgments that are analysed are directly related to these important elements.

As mentioned, chapter 5 contains the conclusion. The purpose of this chapter is partly to conclude on
the analyses of the management’s and the auditor’s responsibility in relation to going concern in chapter
2-4 by answering the working questions that are related to each of these chapters, partly to build on
theses analyses by answering the two overall research questions.

701

Ph.d.-afhandling summary

More Related Content

Similar to Ph.d.-afhandling summary (20)

More from Jesper Seehausen (20)

Ph.d.-afhandling summary