Proceeding contribution from Austin Mitchell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).

Companies Bill [Lords]

The hon. Lady asked for an example. I wonder whether the Department of Trade and Industry report on the performance of Coopers and Lybrand as auditors in the Maxwell case might provide her with a convincing one. The evidence cited was that the senior partner at Coopers and Lybrand summed up the strategy when he told his audit staff:"““The first requirement is to continue to be at the beck and call of R.M.””—" Robert Maxwell—"““his sons and staff, appear when wanted and provide whatever is required””." Was he therefore recklessly conceding to the wishes of Maxwell?

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 450 c1049
Session: 2005-06
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Disclosure of information Consumers Accountability Audit Accountancy Company law Company accounts Companies Directors Business Civil proceedings Conflict of interests Liability Jurisdiction Documents Intellectual property Internet Protection Prosecutions Mergers Public companies Staff Shares Voting rights Shareholders Reorganisation
Legislation: Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk

Companies Bill [Lords]

Secondary information

Librarians' tools