The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) enforcement staff has quietly revised its considerations for recommending whether issuers and broker-dealers should be identified in settled disciplinary orders.
The revised statement, dated July 10, 2026, generally recommends identifying related companies in matters that involve alleged audit performance deficiencies when one of the following three conditions exist:
- a company has publicly disclosed relevant financial-reporting or internal-control concerns;
- another regulator has taken or plans public action related to the core facts; or
- the company, its directors, or officers have been found in a public proceeding to have engaged in related misconduct.
In addition, the statement says staff would generally recommend against identifying issuers or broker-dealers in matters that do not involve alleged deficiencies in the performance of an audit.
Narrows 2022 approach
The revision marks a significant departure from the staff guidelines issued in April 2022 under then-Chair Erica Williams.
At that time, enforcement staff said they would generally recommend naming issuers and broker-dealers in matters involving alleged audit deficiencies or violations of auditor independence rules and standards.
Cases involving issues such as noncooperation with PCAOB oversight and enforcement processes typically would not result in public identification of related companies.
The revised approach resembles earlier PCAOB staff considerations that used more conditional criteria for disclosure prior to Williams’s tenure as chair.
Today’s update is likely to reduce the circumstances in which companies are named in settled disciplinary orders compared to the 2022 guidelines.
Under the 2022 approach, audit deficiency and independence cases generally favored disclosure. Under the 2026 approach, audit deficiency cases are subject to additional screening criteria before staff recommend naming the company involved, while references to independence rule violations as a category generally warranting identification have been removed.
The revised statement says enforcement staff seek to balance “the goal of transparency with fundamental fairness to issuers and broker-dealers.”
Some experts believe that naming an issuer in an audit firm enforcement action can create misleading impressions about the issuer’s own compliance or financial reporting.
The statement also notes that staff may consider other relevant facts and circumstances and emphasizes that the guidance does not establish PCAOB rules or board policy.
Final decisions remain with the board.
“PCAOB Enforcement staff’s updated approach provides a stronger focus on auditor accountability while recognizing that identifying issuers and broker-dealers in certain circumstances may be particularly helpful to investors,” a PCAOB spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “The updated approach also aligns PCAOB settled orders with those of other financial regulators and law enforcement authorities.”
Shift in leadership
The staff guideline shift comes amid broader leadership changes at financial regulators. Williams, who was appointed PCAOB chair during the Biden administration, championed an assertive enforcement posture.
The revised staff statement is issued under PCAOB Chairman Demetrios Logothetis, Williams’ successor.
The revision also follows a change in leadership at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which oversees the PCAOB. Former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler served during the Biden administration, while SEC Chairman Paul Atkins was appointed during the current Trump administration.
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
