1. Structure of the Code Don Thomson, Task Force Chair IESBA Meeting
New York
October 13-15, 2014

2. Recent developments Several TF meetings and e-mail exchanges
Drafting conventions refined and shared with TFs
Additional material in process for January
Additional input received re Consultation Paper
September CAG and October Forum of Firms
Pre-meeting comments from Board members

3. Input received Supportive overall; specific issues re CP follow
Other issues
Safeguards and "other matters" are important (CAG)
Stakeholders also dealing with EU changes (CAG, FoF)
Prior to ED, consider translatability (FoF)
Facilitate thorough analysis, recognizing volume (FoF)
Work effort significant; timeline optimistic (FoF)

4. Introduction and Background
Consultation Paper
Introduction and Background
2 : Change meaning only if agreement, process
Respondents may want changes outside scope (FoF)
10 : Timing – reference to other projects (Board)
Safeguards outside scope; in SWP and not in CP

5. Restructuring the Code
Consultation Paper
Restructuring the Code
14, 17 : "Requirements" heading unchanged
Includes prohibitions (Board – TF considered)
15, 17 : Clarified linkage to conceptual framework
Reference to framework repeated; more self-contained
More questions; presented in a more logical order
Throughout CP
Previous draft less clear, less detailed (Board)

6. Use of Language 20, 21, 22 : Link to defined / described terms
Consultation Paper
Use of Language
20, 21, 22 : Link to defined / described terms
Clarity of terms not previously resolved (Board)

7. Reorganization of the Code
Consultation Paper
Reorganization of the Code
25 : Standards mentioned, question posed
Consider standards, particularly independence standards (CAG, Board)
Restructuring to date has reduced differences
Coverage of topics more self-contained
Also consider branding (WG) - deferred
Examples not set out as standards; not branded

8. Reorganization of the Code
Consultation Paper
Reorganization of the Code
26, 27 : Renumbering proposal unchanged
Did not reduce 3 digits to 1 (Board – TF considered)
27 : Proposals include
Sections 290 and 291 remain separate (Board)
Extant Part C relocated ahead of Part B (Board)

9. Responsibility 32 : 300.201(c) to specifically mention breaches
Consultation Paper
Responsibility
32 : (c) to specifically mention breaches
Firm policies and procedures to require reporting of breaches to responsible individuals
Concern that Code may not be sufficiently specific, particularly regarding the identification of individual to whom report breaches – reporting should be outside the engagement team to firm / national level (CAG)

10. Electronic Code and Concordance
Consultation Paper
Electronic Code and Concordance
37 : HTML version being developed
Enhanced navigation and hyperlinks
Concordance limited to paragraph references
Concern about amount of material to review (FoF)
Considering side-by-side (extant v proposed) wording for ED

11. Illustrative Examples
Consultation Paper
Illustrative Examples
Foreword expanded (previously incomplete)
Explanation of terms; how to use Code
200s : PAIBs ahead of PAIPPs / independence
Intent to enhance Code; avoid any weakening
Mindful of guidance v requirement
Revised draft will address other input
Intended focus of discussion and CP is on approach

12. Forward timeline (tentative)
Oct'14– C P approved
Jan'15– review continues
Mar'15– responses (CAG)
Apr'15– responses
Jun-Jul'15– draft ED
subject to responses to CP, timing of safeguards project
Sep'15– draft ED (CAG)
Oct'15– ED approved
Early'17– Finalize / issue restructured Code
Jan'18– Code effective