BaFin - Navigation & Service

Topic Financial reporting enforcement Financial reporting enforcement

Article from BaFin's 2017 annual report

Monitoring of financial reporting

The number of companies subject to the two-tier enforcement procedure by BaFin and the German Financial Reporting Enforcement Panel (Deutsche Prüfstelle für Rechnungslegung – FREP) declined again in 2017 (see info box "ESMA peer review")1. As at 1 July 2017, 561 companies (previous year: 615) from 8 countries (previous year: 9) were affected.

Table 26 Enforcement procedures completed

Enforcement procedures completed

Enforcement procedures completed BaFin Enforcement procedures completed

The FREP completed a total of 99 examinations in 2017 (previous year: 96), of which 91 were sampling examinations. BaFin itself performed financial reporting enforcement procedures at 18 companies (previous year: 16) and ordered the publication of errors in 15 cases. The FREP had previously identified errors in agreement with the relevant companies in 13 of the 18 cases (see Table 26 "Enforcement procedures completed"). The remaining 5 cases were based on error identification procedures performed by BaFin. In 2 of these cases, the companies had not accepted the FREP's findings, and in 3 cases the companies had refused to cooperate with the FREP. A total of 2 of the 5 cases ended in error findings. For these 2 procedures, BaFin ordered the publication of the findings. The procedures related to various accounting issues, such as earnings per share, reported equity or deferred taxes. 8 cases were still pending at BaFin at the end of 2017.

Legal background:ESMA peer review

In 2017, the two-tier German financial reporting enforcement procedure was assessed as part of a peer review by ESMA, which did not find any violations of the "ESMA Guidelines on Enforcement of Financial Information".2 ESMA published the guidelines in 2014 to ensure the quality of the national enforcement systems. During the peer review, ESMA gained an overview of the resources available to the national competent authorities (Guideline 2). In addition, it assessed the methods applied in the selection of the issuers to be reviewed (Guideline 5). Finally, it also verified how effective the respective enforcement systems actually are (Guideline 6). All ESMA members were included in the peer review through a questionnaire. The peer review also involved a number of on-site visits in certain countries, including Germany. The European supervisory authority identified areas where the contents of the guidelines themselves could be improved. A new temporary working group has been set up to deal with this issue.

Publication of financial reports

In 2017, BaFin examined in approximately 930 cases whether the issuers had published their online annual and half-yearly financial reports on time (previous year: 940). In 16 cases – significantly fewer than in the previous year (27) – it found indications of violations, which it pursued further in administrative fine proceedings. The decline is mainly attributable to two factors: some of the issuers that had not met their obligations in 2016 did so in 2017, while others ceased to admit securities on the organised market.

As in the previous year, BaFin continued to focus on the publication of notifications, which are intended to provide information on when and where financial reports are published on the internet. In 31 cases, issuers whose registered office is in Germany failed to publish these notifications; BaFin pursued these cases in administrative offence proceedings.3 In 29 cases, this related to the publication of notifications on annual financial reports (previous year: 34); half-yearly reports were involved in 2 cases. In all 29 cases, the issuers had not only neglected to publish the notifications, but also failed to publish the financial reports themselves. The publication of annual reports by issuers whose registered office is in Germany is monitored by the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz).

BaFin's examination again included verifying whether the published half-yearly financial reports contained the minimum components required by law. In 13 cases it found, for example, that there was no responsibility statement. In another case, the notes to the interim financial statements had not been included. BaFin pursued these 14 cases further in administrative fine proceedings.

BaFin launched 8 administrative procedures to enforce the financial reporting requirements (previous year: 13). A total of 14 proceedings were still pending from previous years, and 5 proceedings were concluded by BaFin in 2017. Most of the pending proceedings are at the enforcement stage. BaFin threatened coercive fines in 8 cases; it imposed coercive fines of up to €402,500 and initiated enforcement measures in 9 cases.

The German Act Implementing the Transparency Directive Amending Directive (Umsetzungsgesetz zur europäischen Transparenzrichtlinie-Änderungsrichtlinie) also resulted in changes to the way the publication of financial reports in accordance with section 37v et seq. of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz), old version (sections 114 et seq. of the Securities Trading Act, new version) is monitored.

BaFin received a new supervisory tool in accordance with section 40c of the Securities Trading Act, old version (section 124 of the Securities Trading Act, new version): it now has to disclose, immediately on its website, the decisions on measures and sanctions it has taken in response to violations of the above-mentioned financial reporting obligations. BaFin also has to publish any additional information in relation to these decisions such as information as to whether the measures are enforceable, whether appeals have been lodged against the measures taken by BaFin and what the outcome of these appeal proceedings was.4

In 2017, BaFin published information on 11 companies (previous year: 7), detailing the measures taken and the associated comments. These publications make administrative actions much more transparent.

Footnotes:

  1. 1 ESMA press release of 18 July 2017.
  2. 2 See Administrative fines.
  3. 3 See Sanctions.
  4. 4 See Administrative fines and Sanctions.

Did you find this article helpful?

We appreciate your feedback

Your feedback helps us to continuously improve the website and to keep it up to date. If you have any questions and would like us to contact you, please use our contact form. Please send any disclosures about actual or suspected violations of supervisory provisions to our contact point for whistleblowers.

We appreciate your feedback

* Mandatory field

Publications on this topic

ADLER Re­al Es­tate AG: an­nounce­ment of er­rors in the ap­proved con­sol­i­dat­ed fi­nan­cial state­ments as at 31 De­cem­ber 2019 and in the cor­re­spond­ing com­bined man­age­ment re­port for the 2019 fi­nan­cial year

Announcement under section 109 (2) sentence 1 of the WpHG

Within the scope of its examination, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für FinanzdienstleistungsaufsichtBaFin) has determined that the approved consolidated financial statements of ADLER Real Estate Aktiengesellschaft (AG), Berlin, as at 31 December 2019 and the corresponding combined management report for the …

ADLER Re­al Es­tate AG: BaFin iden­ti­fies fur­ther ac­count­ing er­rors in the 2019 con­sol­i­dat­ed fi­nan­cial state­ments

During the course of its financial reporting enforcement examination, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für FinanzdienstleistungsaufsichtBaFin) has identified three further accounting errors in the 2019 consolidated financial statements of ADLER Real Estate Aktiengesellschaft (AG), Berlin. ADLER Real Estate AG wrongly included ADO Properties S.A. in the consolidated …

ADLER Re­al Es­tate Ak­tienge­sellschaft: an­nounce­ment of er­rors in the ap­proved con­sol­i­dat­ed fi­nan­cial state­ments as at 31 De­cem­ber 2019

Announcement under section 109 (2) sentence 1 of the WpHG

Within the scope of its examination, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has determined that the approved consolidated financial statements of ADLER Real Estate Aktiengesellschaft, Berlin, as at 31 December 2019, contain errors.

ADLER Re­al Es­tate AG: BaFin iden­ti­fies ac­count­ing er­ror in the val­u­a­tion of Ger­resheim site

During the course of its financial reporting enforcement examination, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has determined that the consolidated financial statements of ADLER Real Estate Aktiengesellschaft (AG), Berlin, as at 31 December 2019, contain errors. The real estate project “Glasmacherviertel” in Düsseldorf-Gerresheim was valued at EUR 375 million. This represents an …

State-of-the-art su­per­vi­sion: The new fi­nan­cial re­port­ing en­force­ment mech­a­nism

From the beginning of 2022, only BaFin will be examining the financial statements of publicly traded companies. Random sampling examinations and ad hoc examinations will then fall within its remit. If there are suspicions of accounting irregularities, BaFin can intervene directly at the company. If the suspicion is serious, it can examine the accounts using forensic techniques.

All documents