Hi there,

This week, I’m trying something different with the Big4News newsletter. There has been so much Big Four news this week that a single roundup felt more useful than a series of separate emails. Instead, I’m bundling everything into this single weekly roundup.

It’s been an incredibly busy week here at Big4News, as I launched two new sections that I’m thrilled to introduce:

Expert Voices: A space for in-depth interviews, guest contributions, and perspectives from academics, former Big Four partners, policymakers, whistleblowers, and other specialists who can add depth, context, and critical analysis to the stories I cover.

Court Watch: A new series tracking significant litigation involving the Big Four firms. These cases often reveal a great deal about internal culture, governance, accountability mechanisms, and how firms respond when serious allegations surface.

The goal is to move beyond isolated headlines and show how these cases, scandals, and expert perspectives connect. By combining hard news with expert perspectives, we can better understand not just what happened, but why it matters and what it signals for the future of audit quality, professional ethics, regulation, and accountability in Deloitte, PwC, EY and KPMG.

Next week will be just as busy. I have already lined up new Court Watch articles on ongoing cases and more Expert Voices interviews and contributions. In the meantime, here are the four key pieces I published this week. I’ve included summaries, key takeaways, and important context — including fresh updates on the KPMG Australia scandal.

Best, Claudine

Court Watch

Melanie DeCanio v. Deloitte & Touche

Former Deloitte Auditor Sues Deloitte, Alleging She Was Fired After Reporting Sexual Harassment

In a case that could offer rare public insight into how one of the Big Four handles reports of misconduct, former Deloitte auditor Melanie DeCanio is suing the firm. She alleges she was terminated in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and assault by her supervisor, Scott Wilson.

Key Allegations

• DeCanio joined Deloitte in 2021 as an audit assistant.

• In May 2024, during a work event in Annapolis, Maryland, Wilson allegedly placed his hand on her thigh under the table, made sexual comments, and later attempted to kiss her in a bathroom after texting her to meet privately. She resisted.

• After the incident, Wilson became abusive and imposed unreasonable workloads once she returned to his team.

• In February 2025, a coworker reported Wilson’s behavior toward DeCanio to HR after he made another inappropriate comment.

• Instead of focusing on Wilson, Deloitte allegedly investigated DeCanio, placed her on involuntary administrative leave, and fired her “for cause,” citing a minor ~$115 audit discrepancy on a massive $4.3 trillion Fannie Mae engagement — well below the firm’s own “clearly trivial” threshold of $100 million.

• She had no prior disciplinary history and received no warnings.

• Both DeCanio and Wilson were reportedly fired for the same technical reason — which she alleges was a pretext to avoid confronting the harassment allegations.

Court Ruling (June 24, 2026)

Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga granted Deloitte’s motion in part and denied it in part. The hostile-work-environment claim survived the motion to dismiss, with the court applying the continuing-violation doctrine and finding the allegations plausible at the pleading stage. DeCanio’s retaliation claim also remains in the case because Deloitte did not seek dismissal of that count in this motion. The court dismissed her separate disparate-treatment sex-discrimination theory and wrongful-discharge claim against Deloitte.

At this stage, the court was required to accept well-pleaded allegations as true. The ruling is not a finding that Deloitte or Wilson is liable.

Why This Matters

This is a rare public, on-the-record lawsuit by a Big Four auditor. It revives long-standing questions — highlighted in the 2019 Financial Times investigation “Betrayed by the Big Four” — about whether internal processes protect complainants or the firm’s hierarchy and reputation. Unlike anonymous accounts, this case features sworn allegations and potential testimony under oath.

It also underscores broader cultural questions around how misconduct reports are handled and whether “technical” explanations are used to sideline those who speak up. The allegations have not been proven, but the case is significant because it may bring discovery into how Deloitte handled both the harassment complaint and the subsequent termination decision.

Read the full Court Watch article:
https://www.big4news.com/p/former-deloitte-auditor-sues-deloitte

Expert Voices

Professor Brendan Lyon on the CA ANZ Liability Scheme

Brendan Lyon — Professor of Practice at the University of Wollongong, former KPMG Australia partner, and whistleblower on the KPMG TAHE (Transport Asset Holding Entity) scandal — explains why he is taking the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) Professional Standards Scheme to the NSW Supreme Court.

Core Argument

Lyon argues that the scheme’s broad “Category 3” catch-all clause unlawfully extends liability caps (originally intended for traditional public accounting services) to non-accounting work, including the consulting and advisory services that now dominate Big Four revenue.

This effectively allows the firms to operate with capped liability on high-stakes work while enjoying the benefits of partnership structures — creating an unfair competitive advantage over pure consulting firms that face unlimited liability.

Key Insights from the Interview

Unfair Competition & Pricing Power: Capped liability reportedly including an approximately $20 million absolute cap for Category 3 work lets Big Four firms bid more aggressively and take on riskier engagements without the same existential downside, distorting the market.

Incentives & Standards: The “quid pro quo” of capped liability in exchange for higher standards has not materialised. Disciplinary action disproportionately targets smaller firms; Big Four cases, including the PwC tax leaks scandal and KPMG confidentiality breaches, have so far appeared to result in limited public partner-level consequences.

Thin Capitalisation Reality: Big Four partnerships are highly leveraged, with KPMG Australia reportedly carrying more than A$550 million in debt. Partners face full personal liability for debts but enjoy caps on service-related claims, misaligning risk and reward.

Who Bears the Cost?: When damages exceed caps, the cost is borne by clients, shareholders, superannuation funds, and ultimately everyday Australians.

Reform Path: Lyon advocates transitioning Big Four to proper financial reporting, ending tax advantages, and implementing structural separations (especially audit vs. consulting) similar to post-Enron reforms elsewhere.

His challenge stems directly from his experience as a whistleblower and the perceived ineffectiveness of parliamentary inquiries and self-regulation in the face of Big Four political and economic influence.

Read the full Expert Voices interview:
https://www.big4news.com/p/q-and-a-professor-brendan-lyon-on

Abdelhamid Taha on Big Four Whistleblowers and the Architecture of Silence

Abdelhamid Taha (a member of the Secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud & Fairer Financial Services) has written an insightful guest post on why formal whistleblowing systems at Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG frequently fail to protect those who raise concerns — despite hotlines, ethics committees, confidentiality promises, and non-retaliation policies.

The “Shadow Architecture”

Taha argues that a structural “shadow architecture” emerges from the partnership ownership model itself. Partners jointly own the firm and share profits, so the people investigating complaints often have direct economic stakes in minimising findings or protecting colleagues and the firm’s reputation. This creates inherent conflicts that formal policies cannot fully overcome.

Common outcomes for whistleblowers: subtle marginalisation (revised performance reviews, exclusion from meetings, shunning) rather than overt retaliation — making it hard to prove.

Case Studies Highlighting Systemic Failure

PwC Australia Tax Confidentiality Breach: Internal concerns flagged as early as 2017–2019 were not effectively escalated. Legal professional privilege was asserted to delay scrutiny.

KPMG Australia Audit Tender Allegations: Initial internal reviews focused narrowly on employment matters rather than substantive misconduct claims. Later independent review (Allens) acknowledged shortcomings, contributing to CEO and head of audit resignations in May 2026.

PwC Corporate Travel Management (CTM) & WHSmith: Whistleblowers only triggered meaningful action after major financial damage and external pressure; internal channels proved ineffective.

Broader Implications

Internal systems are structurally compromised by partnership incentives and the lack of genuine independence. True reform requires external architecture — independent oversight, stronger statutory protections, and mechanisms that remove investigation from conflicted insiders.

The piece draws parallels to post-Enron US reforms (Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806/301, Dodd-Frank whistleblower programs) and is Part One of a series. Part Two will address a 2025 US Senate Minority Staff Report on KPMG audits.

Read the full Expert Voices article:
https://www.big4news.com/p/big-four-whistleblowers-and-the-architecture

KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal

This comprehensive chronology maps the entire KPMG Australia audit scandal — from the 2023 origins of whistleblower allegations that senior partners misused confidential Lendlease board documents (and other client materials) to gain advantages in audit tenders.

The timeline provides essential context on how confidentiality breaches, conflicts of interest, whistleblower mistreatment, and regulatory capture concerns have escalated into a national reckoning for the firm and, increasingly, the broader Australian Big Four sector.

Key Updates & Developments

The timeline currently runs through early July, but will be updated as events evolve. The following are the most significant developments since my last post on the scandal.

June 24, 2026 - The Commonwealth Department of Finance appointed Dr Ian Watt AC to conduct a high-level, independent, arm’s-length review of KPMG Australia.

Finance said the review was needed because of the seriousness of the allegations, the emergence of further matters, and concerns about the adequacy and independence of KPMG’s earlier review processes. Dr Watt’s report to the Secretary of the Department of Finance is due by 30 September 2026, and is expected to inform the Commonwealth’s future contracting approach to KPMG.

July 1, 2026 — Treasury has opened consultation on a major options paper on the regulation of accounting, auditing, and consulting firms. It explicitly cites recent Big Four conduct, including the KPMG scandal and prior PwC issues, as exposing gaps in the current framework. The consultation closes on August 12, 2026.

These are consultation options rather than enacted reforms, but they show how far the Australian regulatory conversation has moved.

Key proposals:

• Possible structural separation of audit and non-audit services, including an option under which reporting entities could only procure audits from firms that do not offer non-audit services.

• Bringing the Big Four under ASIC licensing and direct oversight, with the regulator given significantly strengthened powers.

• Heavier civil penalties for large firms: Treasury is considering an SGE-style penalty tier for firms with at least A$1 billion turnover, potentially based on the greater of A$18.2 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 10% of aggregated turnover, capped at A$910 million.

• Mandatory audit tendering every 10 years and firm rotation after 20 years.

• Caps on partnership size, reducing from current levels toward 400 partners.

• Stronger independence rules and other structural reforms.

This is one of the most ambitious regulatory reform packages proposed in Australia in response to professional services scandals and signals a potential paradigm shift toward treating large accounting firms more like corporations.

July 2, 2026 — Michael Ebeid Appointed Independent Chair + Immediate Controversy. As part of its governance reset, KPMG Australia appointed Michael Ebeid (former SBS CEO) as its first independent chair.

Within hours, the parliamentary committee released emails Ebeid sent shortly after Senator O’Neill’s March 2026 speech publicising the whistleblower allegations. In those emails, Ebeid described some of O’Neill’s claims as “completely false” and her actions as “very inappropriate and unfair.”

He later issued a public apology, stating he was not aware of the full facts at the time and now recognised the gravity of the whistleblower’s claims and KPMG’s shortcomings in responding to them.

The episode immediately put the new independent chair under scrutiny and highlighted ongoing questions about the firm’s initial institutional response to the allegations.

Additional Context:

• CA ANZ has confirmed that individuals from KPMG made self-disclosures to its independent Professional Conduct Committee, which are being managed through its established processes and by-laws.

• Client and government scrutiny persists, alongside broader public and media debate about whistleblower protections, self-regulation failures, and whether structural reforms (separation of services, external oversight) are now inevitable.

Clearly the scandal is not winding down — it is actively shaping a national conversation about accountability, competition, and regulation in Australia’s professional services sector, with potential ripple effects for Big Four operations globally.

Read the full timeline article:
https://www.big4news.com/p/the-full-kpmg-australia-scandal-timeline

This article forms part of continuing Big4News coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.

Closing Thoughts & Looking Ahead

Taken together, these four stories show why Big Four accountability cannot be understood through isolated scandals alone. The same themes keep recurring: partnership incentives, weak internal escalation, conflicted investigations, liability shields, and regulators now being forced to respond.

That is the purpose of Expert Voices and Court Watch: to connect individual cases with the structural questions behind them.

Next week we’ll have more from both new sections, plus continued coverage of these and other developing stories. If there are specific cases, jurisdictions, or topics you’d like me to look at, please reply and let me know.

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News, providing independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

More about me.

Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or my author website. You can also email me.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

Melanie DeCanio v. Deloitte & Touche

Melanie DeCanio alleges that after a colleague reported her supervisor’s abusive behavior, Deloitte investigated her, placed her on administrative leave, and terminated her “for cause” on the basis of a roughly $115 audit discrepancy in a $4.3 trillion Fannie Mae engagement.

DeCanio claims the justification for the firing was pretextual and that Deloitte fired both her and the manager she alleges sexually harassed her for the same technical reason in an attempt to sidestep responsibility for what had occurred.

On June 24, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga denied Deloitte’s motion to dismiss DeCanio’s hostile-work-environment claim and allowed the retaliation claim to continue. The court found that the allegations, taken as true at this stage, were sufficient to proceed.

This does not mean the allegations have been proven. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court is required to accept the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and determine only whether they state a plausible claim for relief. Judge Trenga found that DeCanio’s hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims meet this standard and may proceed.

The Allegations - Sexual Harassment, Bullying and Retaliation

DeCanio joined Deloitte in 2021 as an audit assistant after graduating from the College of William & Mary. Her career at the firm initially progressed well – she passed her CPA examinations, worked on major audit projects, and received strong reviews, raises, and promotions.

The allegations are centred on an incident that allegedly occurred on May 29, 2024, during a Deloitte event in Annapolis, Maryland. DeCanio and her team were celebrating the completion of the Realterm audit. Festivities started with a lunch, moving on to a boat trip, drinks, and dinner at the Choptank Restaurant.

DeCanio alleges that during dinner, her manager, Scott Wilson, sat next to her. At one point he placed his hand on her thigh under the table, and made sexual comments about another woman who had previously worked on the team. She says Wilson then intimated that he wanted to have sex with her.

Later that evening, according to the allegations summarized by the court, Wilson texted DeCanio asking to speak privately and directed her to meet him downstairs. She says she found him waiting in a single-person bathroom. When she entered, she alleges, Wilson lunged at her and attempted to kiss her, while she resisted and repeatedly told him to stop.

DeCanio alleges that after the incident she struggled with whether to report Wilson to Deloitte management or human resources because she feared damaging her career, particularly because Wilson had previously given her positive evaluations. She says she was largely able to avoid Wilson for several months because of his parental leave and her temporary reassignment to a different sub-team.

But when she returned to Wilson’s team, she alleges that he became abusive, taking every opportunity to demean her and imposing too much work and crushing deadlines.

In February 2025, DeCanio alleges that Wilson made another inappropriate comment after seeing her speak with a male coworker at a team social event. A coworker later noticed DeCanio’s distress and reported Wilson’s conduct to HR because, according to the complaint, the work environment for DeCanio was “not healthy.”

DeCanio alleges that Deloitte’s response focused on her conduct rather than Wilson’s. According to the court’s summary, Deloitte began an investigation within a week of the coworker’s report. DeCanio says she was interviewed by Deloitte human resources personnel and members of Deloitte’s legal department for approximately two hours, placed on involuntary administrative leave, and then terminated “for cause.”

Deloitte allegedly told her she was being terminated because of purported breaches of approved audit-testing methodologies. DeCanio claims that explanation was pretextual.

According to the allegations summarized by the court, the audit issue relied upon by Deloitte involved a discrepancy of approximately $115 in a $4.3 trillion Fannie Mae audit. DeCanio alleges that Deloitte’s own auditing standards treated discrepancies of less than $100 million on that audit as “clearly trivial.” She also alleges that she had no prior disciplinary history, had never previously been accused of violating Deloitte policy, and was terminated without prior warning or counseling.

DeCanio further alleges that Deloitte also fired Wilson, but not for sexual harassment or assault. Instead, according to the complaint, Deloitte terminated both Wilson and DeCanio for the same purported audit-protocol reason. She claims this was an attempt to avoid responsibility for what had happened.

Deloitte Moves to Dismiss

Deloitte moved to dismiss several of the claims. Among other arguments, the firm contended that DeCanio’s hostile-work-environment claim was untimely to the extent it relied on the May 2024 incident, because she did not file her charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — the federal agency that handles employment discrimination complaints — until August 2025. Deloitte also argued that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support a hostile work environment or disparate-treatment sex discrimination claim.

The court rejected Deloitte’s argument that the hostile-work-environment claim should be dismissed as untimely. The judge held that, based on the allegations, the continuing-violation doctrine could apply because the later alleged conduct was plausibly related to the May 2024 incident.

The court also held that DeCanio had sufficiently pleaded a hostile-work-environment claim at this stage. The judge pointed to the totality of the allegations, including the coworker’s decision to report Wilson to human resources and the allegation that Deloitte terminated two otherwise high-performing employees based on a pretext.

However, the court dismissed DeCanio’s separate disparate-treatment sex-discrimination claim. The judge found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that DeCanio’s termination was because of her sex, as opposed to because Wilson’s alleged harassment had been reported. In the court’s view, that theory substantially overlapped with DeCanio’s retaliation claim, which remains in the case.

Big4News Analysis

This case matters less for the underlying harassment allegations than for what it reveals about Deloitte’s response once the misconduct was reported.

DeCanio claims that after a colleague reported her supervisor’s abusive behavior, the firm investigated her, placed her on leave, and terminated her for a $115 audit discrepancy in a $4.3 trillion engagement — an issue she says fell well below the firm’s own “clearly trivial” threshold. She further alleges that Deloitte fired both her and the supervisor for the same technical reason in an apparent effort to avoid confronting the real issue.

These allegations echo concerns raised in the 2019 Financial Times investigation “Betrayed by the Big Four,” which reported that employees who raised complaints of sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination at the Big Four firms were often sidelined, discredited, or pushed out, while alleged perpetrators were protected or faced little consequence. Unlike those largely anonymous accounts, DeCanio’s claims are on the public record and any future testimony will be given under oath. While the Virginia court has not yet made any findings of liability, the case revives a central question for the Big Four: when misconduct is alleged inside these powerful firms, does the internal process protect the complainant, protect the firm, or protect the hierarchy?

For now, the answer remains to be tested. What the court has determined at this early stage is narrower but still significant: DeCanio’s hostile-work-environment claims are plausible enough to proceed, and her retaliation claim remains alive.

This article is part of Big4News’ Court Watch Series

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News, providing independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

More about me.

Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or my author website. You can also email me.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

Professor Brendan Lyon is a former KPMG Australia partner and whistleblower who exposed serious conflicts of interest and potential misconduct in the firm’s work on the New South Wales Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) project. His disclosures triggered significant parliamentary scrutiny of Big Four practices in Australia.

Despite facing substantial personal and professional repercussions, Lyon has remained a leading advocate for greater accountability in the accounting and consulting industries. He currently serves as Professor of Practice at the University of Wollongong, where his teaching and research focus on professional ethics, regulatory policy, and the incentive structures shaping the Big Four.

Lyon is also pursuing a high-profile public interest case in the NSW Supreme Court challenging the scope of liability protections under the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) Professional Standards Scheme.

1. Overview of the Case

Can you summarise, in straightforward terms, what your NSW Supreme Court case is seeking to achieve and why you decided to bring a public-interest challenge against the Professional Standards Council’s approval of the CA ANZ scheme?

My case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a scheme intended to cap legal liability of qualified accountants providing public accounting services can lawfully cap the liability of non-accountants providing non-accounting services.

In application the CA ANZ scheme allows the Big Four and similar firms to operate as a type of unregulated limited liability company outside of the Corporations Law.

2. The Catch-all Clause

The 2007 expansion of the CA ANZ scheme introduced Category 3 services — effectively a catch-all for any services which are not Category 1 or Category 2.

How significant is this broad wording in your view, and what problems does it create for accountability when applied to the wide range of consulting and advisory work performed by Big Four firms?

The ‘catch-all’ nature of Category 3 is central to how the Big Four firms function.

Ordinarily partners have unlimited personal liability for damages caused by any partner in the firm, creating a strong incentive to monitor conduct and standards.

The CA ANZ scheme removes this deterrent by capping liability at a million dollars in most instances, regardless of the damages caused.

When the downside is capped to around a thousand dollars per partner and the upside are partner salaries in the millions, it is little surprise profit trumps principle.

3. Unfair Competitive Advantage

One of the central arguments in your recent paper with David Johnstone (“Watchdog or Show Dog? Incentives and Competitive Advantages of the Big 4 under Australia’s Professional Standards Acts” published in the Australian Business Law Review) is that the liability caps give professional services firms that also perform statutory audit work a significant advantage over pure consulting or advisory firms that do not have access to the same protections.

Could you explain how this competitive distortion operates in practice and why you believe it is unfair?

The major competitive advantage provided by the scheme is its absolute liability cap.

Audit-consulting firms have absolute liability capped at $20 million while ‘pure’ consultants do not — meaning competitors ‘bet the company’ on high risk jobs, while the Big Four do not.

This sees the Big Four able to price and bid more aggressively, because they do not face the same commercial and existential risks as their competitors.

4. Impact on Standards and Behaviour

The scheme was originally justified as a quid pro quo: limited liability in return for demonstrably higher professional standards and better consumer protection.

In your assessment, has that bargain been kept – particularly considering your personal experience as a whistleblower, and developments such as the PwC Tax Leaks and the very recent KPMG confidentiality breach scandal?

My examination of the CA ANZ disciplinary decisions register suggests little enforcement of standards among the Big Four and other major firms, with disciplinary effort apparently focused on small firms and sole practitioners.

In the TAHE matter I blew the whistle on, there are extensive public records evidencing serious misconduct by KPMG’s leadership, but CA ANZ’s five‑year investigation focused on a single individual and ultimately found no misconduct.

In the PwC tax leaks scandal, CA ANZ did not obviously investigate or meaningfully sanction the dozens of partners copied on the emails exposed in the Senate.

5. The “Rationally Ignorant” Public – and Who Actually Bears the Cost

Your paper notes that the public has remained ‘rationally ignorant’ of how Australia’s professional standards liability-capping schemes operate and the advantages they confer on the largest firms.

The caps have been presented as a reasonable protection that ultimately benefits consumers or society. However, as your analysis shows, when a Big 4 firm’s negligence causes losses that exceed the statutory caps ($75 million for Category 1 audit and financial accounting services, and $20 million for both Category 2 receivership/liquidation services and Category 3 “any other services”), the excess cost is typically shifted onto the client’s shareholders, investors or other affected parties rather than being borne by the firm or its partners.

Why do you believe it is important for the public to understand that these caps can work against their interests in this way, rather than in their favour? And do you see your court case as helping to close that information gap?

By ‘rationally ignorant’ we mean the community at large is not aware of the special liability arrangements over the Big Four, do not understand how it can impact them, and have no visibility of CA ANZ’s disciplinary processes — so they cannot make informed judgements of the effect on the public interest or professional standards observed by accountants.

The Professional Standards Council exists to do these things on behalf of the community but given where we are at, there are obvious questions about how effective it has been.

The liability scheme caps the rights of any person to recover their full damages against a scheme member, with caps that are lower than the face value of many Big Four contracts.

It is absurd that liability for a $100 million consulting or advisory contract is capped at $20 million and reduced in practice to one million dollars when the potential damages are likely to be 10 or 20 times fees or more.

This matters enormously to ordinary Australians because many of the largest clients of the Big Four — including major superannuation funds — manage the retirement savings of millions of people. When negligence or poor advice leads to losses that exceed the liability caps, those excess costs ultimately flow through to reduced returns in super accounts. In effect, everyday Australians bear the financial consequences through diminished retirement savings, while the partners responsible face almost no personal downside. The system quietly transfers risk from highly paid professionals onto the retirement nest eggs of workers across the country.

6. Thin Capitalisation and the Reality of Big 4 Leverage

Your paper highlights that the Big 4 operate a high-cost, thinly capitalised model that depends on relentless revenue growth. With recent reports showing KPMG Australia holding over $550 million in debt (around $815,000 per partner) and facing covenant pressure, how do you see the liability caps interacting with this leveraged structure?

As partnerships the Big Four have no retained earnings, so each year becomes a race to earn money faster than accruing expenses.

While the CA ANZ scheme effectively removes partner liability for damages, every partner remains jointly and severally liable for debts or losses ‘to their last shilling and last acre’. With capped liability for any service provided to seek profit, the Big Four operate with an obvious incentive to prioritise sales and income above all else.

The only time partner assets are truly on the line is if they fail to generate enough fees. How those fees are earned becomes a matter of practical indifference.

7. International Comparison

Is the Australian model — in which a professional standards scheme approved for chartered accountants effectively caps liability for multidisciplinary firms across almost any type of consulting work — unique, or do comparable arrangements exist in other major jurisdictions? If the latter, how do those systems differ?

Other common law economies have typically allowed the Big Four to adopt Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) structures, effectively a partnership-corporate hybrid that imposes financial reporting, managerial duties and the like.

Allowing the local Big Four to transition to LLPs will be attractive to them because it would maintain the current tax benefits over corporate competitors.

In looking to ‘new’ legal forms for the Big Four in Australia, policymakers should question first if those firms are any different to large consulting companies.

If not, they should be formed as corporations with the same laws and taxes that bind their competitors.

The Big Four and similar large audit-consulting firms are an obvious place to increase tax revenues while removing an unfair competitive advantage.

8. Personal Motivation and Experience

As a former KPMG partner who blew the whistle on conflicts of interest in a major government engagement, how has that experience shaped your decision to challenge the scheme through the courts rather than through other channels?

Parliamentary inquiries have been crucial to surfacing the serious misconduct of the Big Four but government responses have gone nowhere.

The Big Four are significant political donors, are entrenched across the public sector and act as a ‘shadow’ public service leaving governments badly placed to act.

The legal case concerns specific and narrow statutory construction, but success would have general and wide effects on the incentives and conduct of the Big Four and similar firms.

Just one large claim resulting in partner capital calls would see very different attitudes to risk and conduct enforced by the partners themselves.

9. End Game and Desired Outcomes

If the court rules in your favour, what practical changes would you like to see?

More broadly, what is your ultimate goal with this litigation — is it limited to narrowing the scope of the current CA ANZ scheme, or do you hope it will trigger wider reform of how liability, accountability, and the audit-consulting model are regulated in Australia?

The case only deals with the liability protection. Australia still has a problem with audit quality and conduct, and like all countries is battling the dual role of the Big Four as consulting lapdogs and audit watchdogs.

As well as our unique protection against claims, Australia is also unusual in its absence of a government regulator of public company audit firms.

Self-regulation has obviously, consistently and egregiously failed so I think Australia needs to address that and examine carefully any systemic risks that have been created in recent decades.

10. Regulatory Changes

Looking beyond this specific case, what regulatory or structural changes (for example, around audit-consulting separation or stronger external oversight) do you believe are ultimately necessary to restore public confidence in the Big 4’s role?

Audit is a public good required in the public interest. Consulting and advisory are private goods that advance the sectional interest of a client.

For decades the Big Four have argued their audit quality is better because their multidisciplinary skills deepen the sophistication of their audits.

There is no evidence of this, just repeated instances around the world of audit being used as a trojan horse to reap higher fee consulting engagements.

We need to see a clear policy process that results in new laws that define the limits of what and how audit firms can operate, how they are regulated, and the constraints on other services, similar to Sarbanes Oxley.

We have a serious problem and it needs a serious response in law and practice.

Interviewer’s Closing Comment

Thank you, Brendan, for this candid, detailed, and insightful discussion. I know that you are very busy at the moment, so I truly appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

For readers who want to support this important public interest litigation, Brendan has established a dedicated fundraising campaign on Chuffed. Every contribution helps cover legal costs and advance the case for greater accountability in the profession. The platform also accepts anonymous donations.

Support the campaign here:
https://chuffed.org/project/167311-making-the-big-four-accountable-a-landmark-public-interest-case-for-public-integrity

Whether or not the NSW Supreme Court ultimately rules in your favour, your challenge — together with your teaching and research at the University of Wollongong — is already helping to expose critical questions about liability, incentives, and professional standards in Australia. This conversation is a significant contribution to the ongoing scrutiny of the Big Four.

This article is part of Big4News’ Expert Voices Series

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News, providing independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

More about me.

Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or my author website. You can also email me.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

A guest post by Abdelhamid Taha, member of the Secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud & Fairer Financial Services (writing in a personal capacity).

Editor’s note: This article is part of Big4News’ Expert Voices series, which publishes informed external commentary on audit, governance, regulation, and professional services.

It is Part One of a two-part series on whistleblower protection, Big Four governance, and the external architecture needed when internal systems fail.

Part Two examines the 2025 US Senate Minority Staff Report on KPMG’s audits of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank.

Prologue: The Call That Changes Everything

Imagine you are a senior manager at one of the world’s most prestigious professional services firms. You have spent a decade building your career inside this institution. You know its culture, its unwritten rules, its hierarchies of loyalty. And then one day, you see something you cannot unsee.

A partner does something that crosses a line you cannot rationalise away. Maybe it is a client’s confidential board papers being used to pitch a competitor’s audit. Maybe it is billing documentation that does not survive scrutiny. Maybe it is a revenue recognition treatment you know, with absolute professional certainty, does not reflect reality.

You think about it for days. You read the firm’s whistleblower policy. It is comprehensive, professional, reassuring. There is a hotline. There is an ethics committee. There is a promise of confidentiality and non-retaliation, printed clearly in the firm’s values documentation.

So you make the call.

And that is where the story the policy tells — and the story that actually unfolds — permanently diverge.

Act One: The Architecture of Silence

What happens next is not random, even though it is not the product of individual malice or institutional bad luck. Events follow a sequence so consistent across firms, jurisdictions, and years that it can only be described as an emergent design.

Within days of the report, the caller begins to sense a change in the atmosphere. Meetings they were previously included in no longer appear in their calendar. The partner they reported stops making eye contact. A performance review that was previously positive is quietly revised.

No one says anything directly — that would create evidence. The message is delivered through the texture of daily professional life, in a hundred small signals that are individually deniable and collectively unmistakable.

Former Big Four insiders and whistleblowers have described a recurring pattern: that across multiple firms, from HR processes to investigation committees, there is often a tendency to marginalise rather than protect those who raise concerns. This is not necessarily aberrant behaviour in any single institution. It is better understood as a shadow architecture — the operational system that runs beneath the written policy, recognisable to those who have worked inside these firms, even where it is never explicitly articulated.

No partner sat in a boardroom and designed a system to silence whistleblowers. They did not need to. The shadow architecture writes itself the moment you give the investigation to the people with the most to lose from its findings.

The shunning, the marginalisation, the quiet expulsion — these are not policies. They are what happens when you remove independent oversight from a partnership that values loyalty above all else.

The written policy is the public architecture. The shadow architecture is what the public record — across parliamentary hearings, regulatory findings, and Senate inquiries on two continents — consistently shows operating in its place.

Act Two: Four Cases, One Pattern — No Effective Early Escalation

Let us be precise about what the evidence shows, because precision is what separates an argument from an allegation.

There is a difference, on paper, between a firm’s internal whistleblower hotline and its statutory audit. The former is supposed to surface misconduct inside the firm. The latter is supposed to surface misconduct at the client. But they share the same structural vulnerability: in both, the people responsible for identifying the problem are economically entangled with the people who would be harmed by its discovery.

The cases that follow illustrate a consistent pattern: the same culture and incentive structure that critics argue silences internal reporters can also weaken statutory audits, allowing serious concerns eventually surfaced by people inside the client to go undetected. The void is not identical in form, but it is similar in function.

PwC Australia — The Tax Confidentiality Breach

Concerns about the tax confidentiality breach were identifiable internally as early as 2017. PwC Australia’s own Statement of Facts, published as part of its commitment to transparency, documents missed opportunities for escalation in 2017, 2019, and through the early stages of the Tax Practitioners Board investigation.

The handling of the matter is complicated by the fact that two different CEOs were at the helm across the period in which the leaks occurred and in which the firm’s response was managed.

Tom Seymour, who led the tax practice during part of the relevant period and later became CEO, remained involved in the firm’s handling of the matter rather than fully removing himself from the process — a point that parliamentary critics argued created precisely the conflict the escalation process was meant to prevent.

When investigators sought access to relevant materials, PwC relied on claims of legal professional privilege in a manner that parliamentary critics argued slowed scrutiny significantly, making it harder to establish who knew what and when. The Senate committee and parliamentary critics characterised PwC’s approach as delaying accountability; PwC, for its part, has maintained that it was entitled to assert privilege over legally protected material.

KPMG Australia — The Audit Tender Allegations

A whistleblower raised allegations that confidential client board papers had been improperly accessed and used in connection with competitive audit tenders. This is where the public record becomes forensically instructive about how investigation architecture operates in practice.

KPMG initially engaged Ashurst in connection with the matter. However, Ashurst subsequently told a parliamentary inquiry that it had not been engaged to investigate the whistleblower’s substantive claims at all. Ashurst’s role had been limited to providing a legal opinion on an employment matter — a materially different function from an independent investigation into the underlying allegations.

This distinction matters enormously. Saying an investigation “did not substantiate” allegations implies the allegations were examined and found wanting. What the parliamentary record establishes is that the substantive allegations were never independently examined in the first round at all.

A later review by Allens, commissioned with an expanded scope, reached different conclusions. KPMG has since acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of the whistleblower, the rigour of the process, and leadership’s response. The CEO and head of audit resigned in May 2026.

Corporate Travel Management — The Post-Mortem Channel

PwC auditors accepted a series of internal letters as evidence that the UK government had agreed to waive repayment of £54.6 million in taxpayer money — without seeking independent verification from the relevant departments. The overcharging grew to £128 million before CTM’s own internal accountants discovered the discrepancy. The forensic investigation that followed was not conducted by PwC.

A whistleblower then sent allegations directly to the PwC board after trading had been suspended and analysts had marked the equity value down severely. The internal reporting channel in this case functioned as a post-mortem, not a safety mechanism. The concern arrived after the collapse, not before it.

WHSmith — The Statutory Audit That Missed Two Cycles

Revenue recognition errors in the North American business went undetected across multiple reporting periods from at least fiscal 2023 to 2025, with initial findings indicating a material overstatement of revenues and profits. The scope of issues, including supplier-income and inventory-related matters, was only fully established through subsequent independent review.

It was not PwC that uncovered them. A whistleblower from WHSmith’s own finance team, acting in August 2025, forced action that the statutory audit had not triggered across two full reporting cycles.

A subsequent independent review (by Deloitte) commissioned by the company identified a target-driven culture as a key factor behind the aggressive accounting treatments that had gone unchallenged. The resulting profit warning wiped nearly £600 million from WHSmith’s market value in a single day.

The UK Financial Reporting Council has since launched a formal investigation into PwC’s statutory audit of WHSmith’s consolidated financial statements, examining whether appropriate professional scepticism was applied and whether sufficient audit evidence was obtained in relation to revenue recognition judgements — particularly given the known incentive structure at the client.

In each of the cases described here, the public record shows the same sequence: formal institutional systems — whether internal whistleblower channels or statutory audits — failed to surface, escalate, or resolve serious concerns before external actors intervened. The pattern does not prove design. It demands explanation.

Act Three: The Structural Problem

To understand why this pattern recurs so consistently, you have to understand what a partnership actually is — not as it describes itself in its values documentation, but as a governance structure.

A Big Four partnership is an ownership model in which equity partners jointly own the firm, share its profits, and are collectively and individually invested in its reputational and financial performance.

When a whistleblower raises an allegation implicating a senior partner, every subsequent decision in the institutional response is made by people who are, in a precise economic sense, stakeholders in the outcome of that decision.

The person who decides whether to escalate the allegation is a fellow equity owner whose distributable profit is partially determined by the firm’s overall performance and reputation. The person who commissions the investigation controls the terms of reference, selects the investigating law firm, and briefs it on the relevant background. The person who reviews the findings has their own annual distribution on the line. The law firm engaged to conduct the “independent” review depends on the partnership for ongoing legal work and is selected, briefed, and paid by the same leadership the allegation concerns.

Too often, there is no point in this chain at which a genuinely independent actor makes a genuinely independent decision. The investigation is not corrupted at one node — it is structurally vulnerable to capture at multiple nodes, by the same ownership interest, operating through different institutional roles.

This is not primarily a failure of individual integrity. It is a structural problem. You cannot engineer genuine independence into an investigation process that is wholly owned and controlled by the subjects of the allegation.

The KPMG Australia case illustrates this precisely: the first round of external legal engagement was never tasked with examining the substantive allegations at all. The architecture did not merely fail by accident — it operated in the way the ownership structure made more likely.

This pattern is not random. It flows directly from the ownership structure of these firms — a structure in which those who must decide whether to investigate serious allegations are the same people who stand to lose if those allegations are substantiated.

Act Four: America Learned This the Hard Way — Enron and the Architecture That Followed

The United States did not arrive at its current whistleblower protection framework through policy foresight. It arrived there through catastrophe — and the catastrophe had a name: Enron.

When Enron collapsed in December 2001, destroying approximately $74 billion in shareholder value and the retirement savings of thousands of employees, investigators found that multiple people inside the company had identified, documented, and attempted to raise concerns about the accounting fraud years before the collapse.

Sherron Watkins, Enron’s Vice President of Corporate Development, wrote a memorandum to CEO Kenneth Lay in August 2001 describing, with forensic precision, exactly how the off-balance-sheet structures were concealing debt and would eventually unravel. She was not protected. Her concerns were not independently examined. The memo was handed to Enron’s lawyers — Vinson & Elkins — who conducted a review and concluded there were no significant issues. The firm that produced that conclusion was paid by the institution whose conduct it was reviewing.

Sound familiar?

Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, destroyed documents. Its own employees who had raised concerns about the Enron engagement were transferred or sidelined. The audit opinion remained unqualified until the institution collapsed.

WorldCom followed. Cynthia Cooper, the company’s internal audit chief, discovered that executives had fraudulently inflated assets by approximately $11 billion. She conducted her investigation covertly, at night, because she correctly understood that if it became visible inside the institution it would be stopped before it produced a finding.

Congress’s response was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 — built on a specific diagnosis: that internal reporting mechanisms inside corporations and their auditors could not be trusted to surface material misconduct because the people controlling those mechanisms had a financial interest in the outcome. SOX therefore moved the accountability architecture outside the institution.

Section 806 of SOX established civil whistleblower protections for employees of publicly traded companies, with reinstatement, back pay, and compensation available as remedies; in certain circumstances, separate criminal anti-retaliation provisions under Section 1107 may also apply.

Section 301 required audit committees — not management — to establish procedures for the receipt and treatment of complaints regarding accounting and auditing matters, specifically removing the allegation from the control of the people it most directly implicated.

Then in 2010, Dodd-Frank went further still, creating the SEC Whistleblower Program — a mechanism so structurally different from anything currently available to Big Four whistleblowers in Australia or the UK that it deserves detailed examination.

That examination, along with the 2025 US Senate Minority Staff Report that reveals how far the reform still has to travel, forms the subject of Part Two.

But before closing Part One, consider the question that Enron raised and SOX only partially answered: what happens when the auditor itself — not just the company — needs to be reported? What happens when the firm whose architecture is supposed to surface misconduct is the same firm whose architecture controls the investigation?

America has revisited that question recently. The answer, documented in the September 2025 Senate Minority Staff Report, is as troubling as anything in the cases described above.

Part Two examines that report — and what it tells us about the reform architecture Australia, the UK, and the US still need to build.

--

Abdelhamid Taha is a member of the Secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud & Fairer Financial Services and is an Independent Financial Regulatory Analyst and Public Interest Advocate. He writes on structural failures in audit governance, financial regulation, and corporate accountability. The views expressed are his own.

This article is part of Big4News’ Expert Voices Series

The KPMG Australia scandal began with a whistleblower’s 2024 allegations that senior partners misused confidential Lendlease board documents to gain an unfair edge in winning major audit mandates, including Westpac.

The story exploded into the open in 2026 after parliamentary revelations, a firm admission that internal investigations “fell short,” multiple leadership exits, fresh admissions of further breaches (including Optus-related material), regulator action, and mounting client and government fallout.

It also fits a broader Australian pattern, in which the Big Four have been forced to confront the consequences of treating confidentiality, independence, and oversight as problems to manage after the fact rather than standards to protect from the start.

The scandal has put reform back on the table, reviving proposals that were floated after the PwC tax leaks scandal but went nowhere at the time — including tougher independence rules, stronger whistleblower protections, tighter oversight, and a harder line on separating audit from consulting.

Timeline of a Scandal

October 2023 — Bids submitted by rival firms to the Lendlease audit committee were accessed and displayed by senior partners during a Westpac pitch meeting at KPMG.

6 November 2023 — The “Lunchgate” episode: a proposed tactic to leave a laptop open at KPMG’s Barangaroo office so others could view Dexus materials. Jeff O’Sullivan went to lunch, leaving his laptop open on confidential Dexus internal audit documents so the external audit bid team could view them while writing the tender to bit for the external audit.

Late 2023–March 2024 — Westpac audit tender raises conflict-of-interest questions.
During Westpac’s audit tender, Peter Nash, Westpac’s audit committee chair and a former KPMG Australia national chairman, attended audit pitch meetings. KPMG chair Martin Sheppard later told a parliamentary hearing that Nash had stayed at his house during the pitching process, describing him as a long-standing friend. Westpac said Nash declared his KPMG links and was not on the selection committee, but later acknowledged the perception of bias created by those relationships.

March 2024 — KPMG wins Westpac audit tender (from PwC).

30 May 2024 — A KPMG audit director made a formal internal disclosure about the alleged misuse of confidential client board papers and other concerning conduct.

30 May 2024 — Julian McPherson, then head of audit, authorised the first search of the whistleblower’s work laptop. IT staff covertly accessed the device and extracted documents detailing the allegations, which were then shared with senior partners and then-CEO Andrew Yates.

21 & 26 November 2024 — Further searches of the whistleblower’s laptop are carried out covertly by KPMG.

November 2024 — KPMG won the Dexus audit engagement.

2023–2024 — The whistleblower alleges KPMG used confidential information and relationships with ex-KPMG partners, including Michelle Hinchliffe at Macquarie, to bolster pitches and capture the Macquarie Group audit.

May 2025 — The whistleblower escalates the matter to KPMG International chair Bill Thomas and global general counsel Anne Collins; global leadership declines to open a formal investigation at that time.

24 March 2026 — Senator Deborah O’Neill uses parliamentary privilege to make the whistleblower’s allegations public, triggering national scrutiny.

April 2026 — ASIC begins a preliminary probe into KPMG.

April 2026 — According to KPMG, the firm sanctioned individuals after identifying inappropriate internal sharing of client-related material and an inappropriate informal remark. KPMG said the sanctions were endorsed by a board sub-committee and that relevant individuals self-reported to CA ANZ.

14 May 2026 — KPMG admits to one confidentiality failure.

29 May 2026 — KPMG Australia publicly admits its treatment of the whistleblower and the rigour of internal investigations “fell short,” and the firm issues an apology.

29 May 2026 — CEO Andrew Yates and National Managing Partner of Audit Julian McPherson resign. Stan Stavros is appointed interim CEO. KPMG says the appointment is temporary while the firm continues the process of selecting a permanent successor.

3 June 2026 — Eileen Hoggett, KPMG Australia’s former chief operating officer, steps down from her senior role after Andrew Yates and Julian McPherson resign.

5 June 2026 — ASIC confirms a formal investigation into KPMG and names Eileen Hoggett and Paul Rogers as two registered company auditors under formal investigation.

5 June 2026 — Client fallout begins to become concrete. Dexus said Hoggett would not sign off its 2026 accounts. Rest, the Australian superannuation fund, sought more information from KPMG, and the Reserve Bank of Australia said it did not expect to reappoint KPMG to its whistleblower service.

9 June 2026 — KPMG International is reported to have blocked further partner exits amid concern about audit disruption and capital repayment pressure.

14 June 2026 — Parliamentary hearing line-up becomes public. More than 30 witnesses summoned to appear at the 19 June hearing, including KPMG senior leaders, Lendlease executives, Ashurst, Allens and ASIC.

15 June 2026 — Government scrutiny intensifies; the federal government says KPMG will not bid for new federal work from 16 June to 30 September.

15 June 2026 — Lendlease announces it will change auditor, representing the first major public client loss tied to the scandal.

16 June 2026 — Greens refer KPMG to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

19 June 2026 — Parliamentary inquiry hearings commence; KPMG Australia chairman Martin Sheppard, former CEO Andrew Yates, Lendlease executives and others give testimony.

19 June 2026 — During the hearings, KPMG acknowledges further breaches, including the internal sharing of confidential Optus information in the context of a Telstra bid.

22 June 2026 — KPMG Australia’s debt position comes under scrutiny, with reporting pointing to pressure from client losses, revenue covenants and the risk of partner exits.

23 June 2026 — KPMG Australia chairman Martin Sheppard announces he will leave the firm after a short transition period and retire from his regional board responsibilities, as part of a broader governance overhaul.

23 June 2026 — KPMG announced Rogers and Hoggett would leave, the first independent chair would be appointed, independent directors would be added, a lessons-learned review would be commissioned, Principia Advisory would review the whistleblowing system, and confidentiality/audit pursuit controls would be strengthened.

24 June 2026 — The Department of Finance appoints former senior public servant Dr Ian Watt AC to conduct an independent, arm’s-length review of KPMG Australia’s culture, ethics, integrity and governance. The review is designed to assess the firm’s “ethical soundness” and is due to report to Finance by 30 September 2026, the same date the federal government’s pause on new KPMG contracts is scheduled to end.

1 July 2026 — The federal government releases a Treasury options paper on accounting, auditing and consulting reform, including possible audit/consulting separation, ASIC licensing, stronger penalties, partnership-size limits and mandatory audit rotation.

1 July 2026 — Westpac non-executive director Peter Nash, a former KPMG Australia national chairman, steps down from the bank’s board amid scrutiny of his KPMG relationships during the Westpac audit tender process. Westpac said Nash had disclosed his links and was not on the selection committee, but acknowledged the perception issue.

1 July 2026 — AFR reports that KPMG “rainmaker” Evan Rawstron, who managed more than $100 million in contracts, has left the firm.

2 July 2026 — KPMG appoints Michael Ebeid as first independent chair.

2 July 2026 — Parliamentary committee releases Ebeid emails showing he had described some of O’Neill’s claims as “completely false” and her actions as “very inappropriate and unfair”; he later apologised.

12 August 2026 — Submissions are due to close on Treasury’s options paper into the regulation of accounting, auditing and consulting firms.

This timeline will be updated as the scandal evolves.

KPMG’s scandal is now a test case for whether Australia’s Big Four can be trusted to police themselves. With ASIC investigating, government contracts under review, and calls growing for stronger oversight, the fallout is no longer just about one whistleblower complaint — it is about the future of audit credibility in Australia.

New developments are still emerging.

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News, providing independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

More about me. Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or my author website. You can also email me.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

Deloitte South Asia CEO Romal Shetty captured the moment when he told The Economic Times (ET) that his firm is hiring about 1,000 people a month in India.

That statement is striking because it contrasts sharply with what is happening in other developed markets. In the US, PwC cut around 1,500 positions in 2025, while KPMG trimmed roles in parts of its business. In the UK, KPMG warned nearly 600 employees that their roles were at risk, and Deloitte has sought voluntary redundancies affecting up to 175 audit roles.

On one level, this is exactly how global professional-services firms behave. They cut capacity in slower markets and add it where demand is strongest. There is nothing unusual about firms reallocating people and investment toward growth.

But the scale of the contrast is revealing. India is clearly becoming a central growth engine of the Big Four model.

The Technology Consulting Boom

The expansion in the country is powered first and foremost by technology consulting: cloud, data analytics, automation, digital services, business transformation and Global Capability Centres.

Technology consulting accounts for nearly half of PwC India’s business and around 65% of Deloitte’s. KPMG does not disclose separate technology numbers, but consulting, which includes technology, constitutes 35–40% of its overall revenue.

Deloitte is the clear leader in this area. It has expanded its technology consulting footprint, widened its client base, and invested in new technology platforms and innovation centres. The investment appears to have paid off: Deloitte South Asia generated nearly ₹19,000 crore (~US$2.0 billion) in sales in FY26 and had a pipeline of close to ₹34,000 crore (~US$3.6 billion).

The GCC Surge

Much of this growth is connected to GCC-related work. Global Capability Centres allow multinational companies to concentrate technology, finance, analytics, operations, compliance, product development and other corporate functions in India. The Big Four are competing to help clients design, build, expand and upgrade these operations.

The numbers show how important this has become. GCCs bring in 25% of PwC’s technology consulting revenues, 40% of Deloitte’s and 35% of EY’s.

The scale of this investment should not be underestimated. The Big Four are not merely adding headcount in India. They are building technology capacity, expanding delivery platforms, deepening sector expertise and positioning India as a central node in their global operating models.

That is why the boom matters. But it is also why the risks matter.

Why Big Four India Revenue Figures Need Caution

The Big Four in India are locked in an intense competition to outdo each other, but their headline revenue figures are not always directly comparable. The Economic Times reports that the firms sometimes use expansive approaches to headline revenue reporting, including items such as out-of-pocket expenses billed to clients, GST, royalties, subcontracted work, global delivery centre revenues and even one-off asset sales.

Some of these items are arguable. Reimbursed expenses and subcontracted work can depend on the structure of the arrangement and whether the firm is acting as principal or agent. But the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is different.

Professional services in India are generally subject to 18% GST. That tax is collected from the client and remitted to the government. Under ordinary revenue-recognition principles, amounts collected on behalf of third parties are not revenue. They are pass-through amounts.

That makes the reported inclusion of GST in headline revenue perplexing. These are accounting and audit firms whose own audit practices require clients to separate revenue from taxes collected for the state. Yet when discussing their own performance, at least some appear willing to report numbers that include an 18% consumption tax.

A one-off asset sale raises a different, but related, presentation problem. The proceeds or gain may belong to the firm, but they are not generated by audit, tax, consulting or advisory work. Under normal accounting treatment, a property disposal gain would be reported separately, not folded into operating revenue.

Nonetheless, according to The Economic Times, KPMG’s FY26 revenue included royalties, a one-off asset sale and revenue from KDN, its global delivery centre. Those inclusions may have helped KPMG cross the $1 billion mark, but they also underline the core problem: headline revenue is being used in a way that makes the firms look larger while making their numbers harder to compare.

The result is that headline performance reporting becomes competitive posturing.

This does not undermine the broader growth story. India’s Big Four boom is clearly being driven by real demand. But it does mean that the headline numbers need to be read with care.

According to ET, these inclusions can create a 10% to 25% variation between headline revenue and core revenue. Once they are excluded, the combined core India revenue of the Big Four lands at approximately US$6.2 billion.

Can the GCC Model Move Up the Value Chain Fast Enough?

The Big Four are clearly investing heavily in the market. However, there is a danger that the relentless competition to be the biggest and the fastest-growing could direct funds towards investments that will pay off in the short term, as opposed to ones where the return could take years to crystallise.

This is where the GCC boom becomes especially important. GCCs offer the Big Four a powerful combination: scale, skilled labour, lower delivery costs and strong client demand. That makes them attractive growth engines.

It also creates a strategic challenge. The current GCC model is highly valuable, but the market is changing quickly. AI will alter how much human labour is needed for some forms of process-heavy work. It will also increase demand for higher-value services: AI governance, model oversight, cybersecurity, data architecture, enterprise automation, product development, complex transformation work and human judgment around risk and controls.

The Big Four know this. They are not ignoring the shift. Significant investments in AI readiness and delivery capability are already underway in India. Deloitte, for example, has trained tens of thousands of its Indian professionals in AI tools and applications, while the other firms are also building AI-enabled platforms and upskilling delivery teams in their Indian operations.

The question, then, is not whether the firms are investing. They are. The question is whether the profitability and scale of the current GCC model will delay their move up the value chain.

That transition requires more than headcount. It requires senior expertise, deep training, judgment, supervision and the willingness to absorb short-term costs for longer-term capability. It is less immediately scalable than adding thousands of people to support the current delivery model.

This is the strategic risk inside the boom: not that the Big Four will fail to see the future, but that the present may remain profitable enough to slow the harder transition toward it.

The Quality Question

There is a second, related risk: quality.

Deloitte’s reported pace of hiring roughly 1,000 people per month is extraordinary. While this enables the firm to capture market share quickly, aggressive expansion creates pressure on training, supervision, quality control and culture.

In professional services, quality depends heavily on experience, judgment, mentorship and consistent standards — all of which take time to develop and transmit. When headcount grows at this velocity, training and onboarding become harder to deliver at the required depth. Mentorship and supervision get stretched. Cultural dilution becomes a genuine possibility, as new joiners have less opportunity to absorb the firm’s standards and ways of working.

Maintaining quality thus becomes one of the central management risks of growth at this speed.

This tension is fundamental. The very attributes that make India attractive as a growth engine — the ability to scale rapidly and cost-effectively — can, if not carefully managed, undermine the quality that underpins the Big Four’s reputation and ability to command premium fees.

The Real Test

India is now one of the Big Four’s most important growth markets. But the race to dominate India is not risk-free. The same competitive pressure visible in headline revenue reporting is also visible in how aggressively capacity is being built. Growth at this scale requires more than ambition. It requires transparency, discipline, quality control and patience.

That is the real test of the India boom. Not whether the Big Four can keep hiring, keep expanding and keep reporting larger numbers. They almost certainly can. The harder question is whether they can build something durable: a business that grows quickly without blurring its numbers, diluting its culture, weakening its quality controls or postponing the investments needed for the next stage of professional services.

India may be the Big Four’s great growth story. Whether it becomes a sustainable one will depend on how carefully the firms manage the risks created by their own success.

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News, providing independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

More about me.

Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or my author website.

You can also email me.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

Who is Associate Professor Andy Schmulow?

Associate Professor Andy Schmulow is a legal academic at the University of Wollongong specialising in banking regulation, conduct risk and corporate governance. His work has examined financial sector accountability, regulatory failure and professional misconduct across Australia and South Africa. He has emerged as one of the most consistent and outspoken critics of practices within KPMG Australia.

Q: Professor Schmulow, you have been outspoken in your criticism of KPMG. Why do you hold such strong views about the firm?

I grew up in South Africa, and KPMG’s conduct there was criminal. KPMG South Africa actively facilitated, engineered, and orchestrated aspects of the corruption that characterised the Zuma presidency. The firm colluded with the Gupta family, who, together with Jacob Zuma, systematically looted state resources.

The consequences were devastating: funds were diverted from hospitals, schools, clean water programmes, and policing. Children died. Communities were left without basic services. The damage to South Africa’s institutions and social fabric was profound, and the country will take generations to recover.

I have said publicly, including in evidence to parliamentary inquiries, that I am a fierce critic of KPMG because of its role in the fiscal devastation of South Africa, and because the same behaviour has repeatedly surfaced elsewhere. I have also been vocal about this on social media and in public commentary. That remains my position.

Q: You have described a clear pattern of misconduct that stretches from South Africa to the current situation in Australia. How do you see that continuity?

The pattern I see connecting the two episodes is unmistakable. It is driven by greed — the willingness to turn a blind eye to serious issues, to push the boundaries of what is ethically and professionally acceptable, and to monetise access at all costs.

In South Africa, KPMG ignored internal whistleblowers and delivered work that enabled large-scale corruption in order to preserve lucrative relationships.

The same profit-first logic is evident in the current Australian scandal. In order to win new business, the firm betrayed longtime clients by stealing highly sensitive information and leveraging it to secure new contracts — and then lied about it.

They also shut down the whistleblower, making it clear that their priority was not integrity but profit. It was the same story with previous whistleblowers - Andrew Yates (former CEO of KPMG Australia) even blocked payment of legal fees related to parliamentary matters for whistleblower Brendan Lyon.

Q: The current scandal involves specific allegations around the whistleblower’s treatment. What stands out to you as particularly concerning?

Several elements are deeply troubling.

First of all they conducted covert surveillance on the whistleblower’s computer and emails. Clearly their concern was not investigating the claims, but rather finding out exactly what he knew and what evidence he had in hand. That alone reveals where the firm’s true priorities lay.

Then came the retaliation. Within a month of his initial formal disclosure, leadership moved to terminate his employment, telling him he must relocate overseas or face dismissal. They also tried to smear his reputation and isolate him, to the point of warning other employees, and even a retired partner, not to communicate with him.

Emails read in the inquiry indicated that the Chair, Martin Sheppard, pre-emptively sought to downplay the whistleblower to independent directors and suggested reporting him to general counsel.

No wonder the whistleblower has stated publicly that the experience has left him regretting coming forward, and that knowing what he knows now, he would not blow the whistle again. He has paid a very bitter price for trying to do the right thing.

Q: You have also criticized the leadership response during the parliamentary hearings. What concerns you most about how KPMG Australia’s senior figures have conducted themselves?

The testimony before Parliament showed senior figures repeatedly characterising serious misconduct — including the misuse of confidential client information and retaliation against whistleblowers — as mere “carelessness” or a failure to “meet expected standards.”

They also tried to hide behind legal professional privilege. Chair Martin Sheppard, told the inquiry he had “agonised” over the decision but ultimately withheld important documents on privilege grounds.

So a firm that misused its clients’ confidential information is now invoking the strictest protections for its own documents! At the same time, it lectures about “procedural fairness” and “unfair prejudice” to individuals while they did not hesitate to spy on the whistleblower’s laptop, marginalise him and destroy his career.

They are using exactly the same playbook used by PwC Australia during the Tax Leaks scandal three years ago: downplay the issues, contain the damage, and avoid full accountability. That strategy backfired spectacularly, yet KPMG appears to be repeating the same mistakes. Clearly, no meaningful lessons have been learned.

Q: What do you believe genuine accountability should look like in this case?

Genuine accountability requires more than changes at the top after prolonged resistance. While the resignations of Yates, McPherson, Hoggett, Rogers and Sheppard are a step in the right direction, they are not enough on their own. The entire partnership must accept responsibility for the culture that allowed these issues to develop and persist.

In addition, genuine accountability requires lifting unnecessary barriers to scrutiny where they have been used to shield information from proper oversight, and ensuring that future whistleblowers are supported properly rather than marginalised.

At a minimum, this means publicly acknowledging the full extent of what occurred, ensuring those responsible face appropriate consequences, and implementing independently verified reforms with clear timelines and measurable outcomes.

There should also be restitution and proper support for the whistleblowers whose careers the firm has damaged — at least three individuals over the past three years were subjected to extreme retaliation for speaking up about malfeasance they witnessed at KPMG Australia.

Q: The scandal has raised serious questions about KPMG Australia’s ongoing commercial relationships with government and other major institutions. How do you view the scale of these relationships and the risks they create?

The scale is enormous and the risks are profound. KPMG Australia is on track to earn approximately $653 million from the Commonwealth Government this financial year alone. The firm is the largest provider of consulting services to Defence Australia. This means a firm currently under intense scrutiny for allegedly misusing confidential client information and retaliating against whistleblowers continues to hold privileged access to highly sensitive government data and decision-making processes.

The situation is untenable.

Associate Professor Schmulow, thank you for your time and for sharing your analysis so candidly. Your perspective has been invaluable.

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal and the Expert Voices Series

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News, providing independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

More about me.

Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or my author website. You can also email me.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

PwC Australia must have been quietly relieved when the Australian arm of KPMG became engulfed in a whistleblower storm last month. Headlines about its rival’s misuse of confidential client information from Lendlease, Westpac, Dexus and Singtel Optus — and the ensuing Senate inquiry — dominated the news.

This came just as allegations surfaced that a PwC employee had accused the firm’s auditors of ignoring multiple red flags in the audit of Corporate Travel Management (CTM), an Australian-listed travel group — particularly in relation to questionable documentation tied to a £128 million overcharge to the UK government.

The CTM Overcharge Scandal

In 2020, Corporate Travel Management’s British subsidiary was contracted to arrange emergency repatriation flights and hotel accommodation for British citizens stranded overseas during the Covid pandemic.

The CTM UK team overcharged on these contracts through inflated airfares, hidden mark-ups, and billing for services that were either never delivered or not contractually justified.

Two years later, the discrepancies were discovered by the company’s in-house accounts team. UK clients, in the main government bodies, had been overcharged by at least £54.6 million.

The Australian board, and the company’s auditors, PwC, were made aware that serious overbilling had occurred, but were told that the clients who had been overcharged had agreed not to seek full refunds.

A Significant Failure of Professional Scepticism

This is the part that strains credulity. While it is possible the auditors were presented with documentation that appeared credible at the time — particularly amid the chaos of pandemic-era emergency contracts — it is difficult to accept that the board and PwC genuinely believed a UK government department would simply waive repayment of £54.6 million of taxpayers’ money after being overbilled.

Yet that is what appears to have happened.

PwC auditors accepted a series of letters presented by CTM’s UK team as evidence that the government had agreed to forgo repayment.

The amount involved was equivalent to around A$97 million at 2022 exchange rates. That year CTM reported a profit after tax of just A$3.1 million for the entire group. Had the company properly accounted for the amounts it had overbilled by putting in place a provision to repay them, it would have recorded a substantial loss rather than a small profit.

While management and the board ultimately bear responsibility for financial reporting, the sheer scale of the exposure demanded far greater scrutiny from the auditors. PwC was in duty bound to insist on independent verification of the claims with the relevant UK government departments, rather than relying solely on management assurances.

Inadequate Testing of Internal Controls

In addition, once aware of material overcharging, the auditors should have conducted robust testing of controls around billing, revenue recognition, and contract management — to understand how the failures occurred and whether they could recur. Public information gives little indication this happened.

The failure to properly test these controls — and to press the company to strengthen them — meant the weaknesses were allowed to persist.

This had consequences. In February 2023, while these issues remained unaddressed, CTM UK won a much larger multi-year framework contract worth around £1.6 billion, which included the management of asylum-seeker accommodation.

Overcharging continued. In 2025, internal CTM accountants once again discovered major discrepancies in the UK accounts. This triggered a forensic investigation, which soon uncovered that the letter agreements provided as proof that the UK government did not require a refund were not authentic, and that the amount overcharged had now ballooned to £128 million (approximately A$245 million at 2025 exchange rates).

Michael Healy, the former head of CTM’s UK and European business, was stood down amid findings of misconduct across multiple contracts.

Notably, it was not PwC that identified the discrepancies that triggered the investigation, nor did PwC conduct the forensic investigation.

Whistleblower Allegations and Regulatory Scrutiny (2025–2026)

In August 2025, Corporate Travel Management flagged the overbilling problems and postponed the release of its full-year accounts. It later revealed that it would have to refund customers, including the British government.

Trading in the company’s shares was subsequently suspended on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Its market value collapsed, with analysts marking its equity value at zero. What began as an internal accounting issue had escalated into a full-blown crisis, drawing regulatory scrutiny in both Australia and the United Kingdom.

On April 27, a whistleblower sent an email to the PwC board alleging that the audit team had overlooked several irregularities in CTM’s accounts and billing. In response, the independent chairman of the board, John Green, immediately engaged law firm Webb Henderson to investigate the allegations. That review remains ongoing.

Overstated Revenue at WHSmith

While the issues at Corporate Travel Management have raised serious questions about PwC’s audit work on Australian clients, similar concerns have surfaced in the UK with its audit of WHSmith.

Material revenue recognition errors in the retailer’s North American business — specifically the premature recognition of supplier promotional income and rebates — went undetected across multiple reporting periods from at least fiscal 2023 to 2025. These errors overstated revenues and profits in the North American division by around £30 million, artificially inflating both divisional and group results.

Once again, it was not PwC that uncovered the misstatements. The problems only emerged after a whistleblower from WHSmith’s finance team raised concerns in August 2025.

The subsequent profit warning revealed sharp downward revisions to North American and group profit forecasts. It wiped nearly £600 million from the company’s market value in a single day as shares fell around 42%.

A subsequent independent review conducted by Deloitte identified weak internal controls and a target-driven culture as key factors behind the aggressive accounting treatments used to protect reported results and bonuses.

UK Regulator Launches Investigation

The UK Financial Reporting Council has since launched a formal investigation into PwC’s statutory audit of WHSmith’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2024.

The FRC will examine whether the auditors exercised appropriate professional scepticism and obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to these revenue recognition judgements, particularly given the known incentive structure.

A Troubling Pattern

Taken together, the Corporate Travel Management and WHSmith cases reveal concerning patterns.

In both instances, significant accounting distortions in foreign subsidiaries went undetected by PwC for extended periods. In the CTM case, the issues originated in the UK operations of an Australian-listed company. In WHSmith, they sat in the North American business of a UK-headquartered group.

Additionally, in both cases, the firm had been the company’s auditor for several years, which is possibly why they were more prone to accept management assertions at face value.

The problems at CTM and WHSmith were exposed through internal reviews or whistleblowers, rather than through the statutory audit process.

And in both cases, questions have been raised about the level of professional scepticism applied by PwC and the adequacy of its testing of controls in high-risk areas.

Cross-Border Expertise in Question

For a firm that positions its global network and cross-border expertise as a core strength, the repeated failure to detect material issues in overseas subsidiaries raises serious questions about the consistency of its audit quality.

One of the main reasons boards and audit committees award large multinational audits to the Big Four — and accept the premium fees that come with them — is the belief that these firms can provide reliable oversight across multiple jurisdictions. Mid-tier firms are seen as lacking the same depth of international presence and cross-border coordination, leaving clients with less confidence that risks in foreign subsidiaries will be properly identified and addressed.

When significant accounting issues in overseas operations — such as those in CTM’s UK business and WHSmith’s North American division — go undetected for years, it directly undermines this central part of the Big Four’s value proposition.

Clients are effectively paying for the assurance that comes with a global network, yet in these cases the network appears to have failed to deliver consistent professional scepticism and control testing where it was most needed.

This not only damages the reputation of the individual firm involved, but also weakens the broader argument that only the largest firms can be trusted with complex, cross-border audits.

About Claudine Cassar

I’m a corporate anthropologist and former Deloitte equity partner. I sold my technology business to Deloitte in 2016 and led the Malta Consulting team for five years. I now write Big4News to deliver independent, clear analysis of PwC, Deloitte, EY, and KPMG — free from corporate spin.

Find me on LinkedIn, X, Instagram or my author website.

Feel free to reply to this newsletter — I read every reply.

KPMG UK has ended its popular summer “Jump Start” early Friday finish programme. The benefit, introduced in 2021 as a Covid-era wellbeing measure, allowed staff to finish 2.5 hours earlier on Fridays through the end of August — provided they logged a full 40-hour week by working more hours on other days.

A spokesperson for the firm said:

“Every year we review our summer ‘jump start’ programme to make sure we are considering market conditions and business needs.”

The change affects roughly 16,700–17,000 people across the UK.

The question at this stage is: What does the removal of this perk — coming shortly after nearly 600 redundancies (mostly in audit) and the highest average distributable profit per partner on record — reveal about how KPMG UK is balancing short-term cost discipline against longer-term organisational health and culture?

To answer that, it helps to look at the sequence of events and the signals they send about priorities and trust inside the firm.

Redundancies and Poor Communication at KPMG

In late March 2026, KPMG UK announced plans to cut around 440 assistant manager positions in audit — roughly 6% of the audit division’s 7,100-strong workforce — along with 120 roles in advisory.

The problem with the announcement was not just the scale of the cuts, but how they were communicated.

Staff described a fragmented process, with news of the advisory cuts emerging first and the larger audit reductions only becoming clear later through external reporting.

There was no clear, firm-wide communication explaining the rationale.

Anonymous sources inside the firm expressed frustration:

“We only got [news of] the advisory side, so when the news came out that it was 600 jobs…oh, audit has been hit as well.”

“KPMG didn’t do like a firm-wide email being like ‘this is what’s happening with the firm’.”

“There has been a lot of ‘mismanagement’… one minute, there is an email saying the business is doing well; the next, there is an email saying people will be laid off.”

Source: CityAM

The result has been widespread anger and a sense that leadership failed to treat people with basic respect during a difficult process.

A Sector-Wide Adjustment after the Post-Covid Hiring Surge

KPMG is not the only firm to lay off staff in the UK over the last year or so. On June 16 (just days ago), Deloitte announced it is offering voluntary redundancy packages to up to 175 auditors in its audit and assurance practice. PwC and EY have also “right-sized” by reducing headcount.

In each case the firms cited:

• Low attrition — The recent economic uncertainty reduced the natural turnover that firms normally rely on to manage headcount.

• Softer demand in parts of the business — Clients have become more cost-conscious. Audit has been resilient but still faces pricing pressure and efficiency demands.

• Cost discipline and margin protection — The firms are managing their P&L through careful cost management.

• Shift toward efficiency and new priorities — Investment in AI and technology is a deciding factor when reducing headcount.

That said, while these pressures are common across the Big Four, the way individual firms chose to manage headcount reductions, communicate change, and balance cost control with staff flexibility and wellbeing sent quite different signals about their organisational priorities and culture.

A Heavier Workload For Those Who Remain

Assistant Managers are central to audit delivery — handling fieldwork, reviewing junior work, and managing client relationships — so the reduction of headcount in this crucial role will inevitably put significant additional pressure on those who remain.

Reporting by CityAM on job cuts across the Big Four in the UK found that staff in audit departments have been expected to absorb the workload of colleagues who were made redundant. This has led to significantly longer working hours.

One source described situations where staff were working from 6am until 1am for days at a time, with some reduced to tears under the strain. Many expressed concern that the pressure would intensify further.

By removing Jump Start, KPMG eliminated one of the few formal mechanisms allowing staff to avoid working the same long (and often unpaid) hours on Fridays that have become common across the rest of the week.

The impact is not just burnout. People who are consistently working under this level of pressure are at a higher risk of making mistakes and taking shortcuts — directly affecting audit quality.

Record Partner Earnings

What makes this situation difficult to reconcile is that KPMG UK partners have just banked their biggest payday ever.

For the year ended 30 September 2025, the combined KPMG UK/Swiss Group reported revenue of £3.6 billion (up just 2%), but profit before tax jumped 14% to £576 million.

Average distributable profit per partner rose 11% to £880,000 — the highest level on record.

The firm itself credited “careful cost management in response to the economic cycle” and a continued “focus on managing costs” amid headwinds and lower attrition.

The same pattern appeared the previous year: modest revenue growth paired with double-digit profit increases driven by cost discipline.

In other words, while staff have faced redundancies, reduced flexibility, and what many see as tone-deaf internal communications, partners have enjoyed their strongest financial year yet.

Earlier Cost Cuts: Pay Freeze and Bonus Reductions

This is not the first time KPMG UK staff have been asked to absorb cost cuts while partners banked record gains.

In late 2023, the firm froze salaries for around 12,000 UK workers (except promoted staff) and reduced bonuses; staff in the tax and legal division received only 55% of their target bonus for the year.

At the time, KPMG cited the same rationale it is using now — “market uncertainty.”

Then in October 2025, KPMG cut pay for staff in Band 2 offices (Reading, Watford, Cambridge, Oxford), removed annual salary adjustments, and scrapped “recharges” — which means that they stopped paying staff for overtime when they worked over 50 hours in any given week.

The removal of Jump Start may seem small in isolation. But when stacked on top of a messy redundancy round, earlier pay freezes and bonus cuts, and record partner earnings, the decision raises questions about how the firm is prioritising different stakeholder interests.

KPMG vs PwC on Summer Fridays

It has also probably not gone unnoticed by KPMG staff that PwC – presumably facing the same “market conditions” – is still running its own summer Friday policy this year.

PwC employees can finish at lunchtime on Fridays from 20 July to 28 August, though the window has been trimmed from 12 weeks to six.

The Impact on KPMG Culture

Beyond the immediate operational pressures, the combination of decisions made by senior leaders at the firm — large-scale redundancies in audit, poor internal communication, earlier pay and bonus reductions, and now the removal of a visible wellbeing perk — carries cultural significance.

In organisational terms, these moves function as signals about what (and who) the firm values most.

When a firm publicly frames cost discipline as necessary for long-term sustainability while simultaneously removing one of the few formal mechanisms that gave staff permission to step back from extended hours, it risks eroding the psychological contract — the unwritten understanding of mutual obligation between the organisation and its people.

This matters, because professional services firms like KPMG rely heavily on discretionary effort, trust, and a sense of shared identity to deliver complex, judgement-based work such as audit.

When repeated actions appear to prioritise partner returns and cost control over the conditions that sustain staff commitment and professional scepticism, the cultural fabric of the organisation can begin to fray.

Over time, this can manifest not just in higher turnover, but in quieter forms of withdrawal — reduced willingness to go the extra mile, weaker identification with the firm, and a more transactional relationship between professionals and the partnership.

So the longer-term risk for KPMG UK lies not only in potential impacts on audit quality and retention, but in whether the firm can sustain the high-trust, high-commitment culture needed to attract and retain talent while navigating technological change and regulatory expectations.

Tomorrow, more than 30 witnesses will appear before a parliamentary inquiry into KPMG Australia’s confidentiality breach scandal. Chaired by Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services will hear from current chairman Martin Sheppard, interim CEO Stan Stavros, former CEO Andrew Yates, former Head of Audit Julian McPherson, former COO Eileen Hoggett, and independent board members — including former NSW Premier Mike Baird.

The hearing is expected to be intense, with sharp questioning likely over how the firm handled whistleblower complaints and whether confidential client information was misused to win new audit work.

The allegations, first raised by a whistleblower in 2024, centre on claims that senior KPMG partners improperly accessed and circulated highly confidential documents belonging to long-standing audit client Lendlease. These included competitor bids submitted by PwC and EY, as well as internal ranking sheets and other sensitive materials that were intended solely for Lendlease’s audit committee.

It is also alleged that during a meeting at KPMG’s Barangaroo office on 6 November 2023, a proposal was made for an internal audit partner to leave his laptop open with Dexus internal audit documents visible while he went for lunch, so that external audit personnel could view them.

According to the whistleblower, this confidential information was relayed to the firm’s tender war room, where it was used to strengthen bids to win the external audit mandates for Westpac and Dexus.

KPMG Australia is under considerable pressure. Its reputation has been damaged by the allegations, long-standing clients are reviewing or terminating relationships, and a material share of government contracts faces review. These issues are serious, yet the firm’s approximately $557 million in borrowings — and the revenue covenants attached to them — may represent a broader structural risk.

Why KPMG Australia Had to Borrow So Much Money

One of the key reasons KPMG Australia has borrowed $557 million from National Australia Bank (NAB) and DBS lies in how professional services partnerships traditionally operate. These firms typically distribute the vast majority of their profits to partners each year rather than retaining earnings to build a financial buffer or “war chest” for tougher times.

Because profits are calculated on an accrual basis — meaning revenue is recognised when work is delivered, not when cash is received — the firm can report strong profits on paper long before it has even invoiced the client, let alone received payment.

In such situations, the only way to fund day-to-day operations — including salaries, rent, and other running costs — is to borrow heavily.

This approach was addressed during a 2023 parliamentary inquiry, when then-CEO Andrew Yates was questioned by Senator Barbara Pocock about the firm’s growing borrowings. Yates stated:

“We borrow to fund the operations of our firm, which generate profit… We don’t borrow money to then directly distribute that money to partners.”

While technically correct in a narrow sense, the reality is that the debt was necessary to enable the firm’s high level of profit distributions. Without it, KPMG would not have been able to maintain both its operations and its partner payouts at the same time.

Why the Covenants Are a Problem

The loan agreements include revenue covenants, which require the firm to maintain minimum levels of revenue.

These terms were negotiated when KPMG revenues were growing at a steady rate. However, since the PwC scandal in 2023, KPMG’s revenue has declined:

FY23: Record high of $2.553 billion

FY24: Sharp drop of 6.5% to $2.386 billion

FY25: Further decline of 3.0% to $2.315 billion

This pre-existing weakness has left the firm with much less headroom. Any significant further drop in revenue now risks pushing it into breach of its banking covenants.

Client Relationships Under Pressure

Several major clients are actively reviewing or have signalled they will end their relationships with KPMG Australia, with the largest potential losses concentrated in audit work.

Long-standing client Lendlease has effectively ended its audit engagement, worth approximately $10 million annually.

Westpac’s audit mandate, valued at around $32 million per year, is under active review and faces possible termination.

Macquarie Group’s Australian audit work, estimated at roughly $30 million, is also under scrutiny.

Dexus is expected to review its audit relationship with the firm.

On the government side, KPMG holds federal contracts worth a combined $653 million, of which more than $270 million is already under review.

Taken together, these developments represent a significant revenue exposure across both audit and consulting.

What Happens If the Covenants Are Breached?

A breach of the revenue covenants would give the lenders material rights under the loan agreements. While an immediate acceleration of the full $557 million debt is considered unlikely, the banks would have several levers available to them.

These could include increasing interest rates, requiring additional security or guarantees, imposing stricter reporting and oversight, or declining to renew facilities on maturity.

For a professional services firm that relies on debt to manage working capital and partner distributions, any of these measures would create meaningful operational and liquidity pressures.

The Impact on Partners

The consequences would not be limited to the firm itself. Because KPMG Australia operates as a partnership, the structure can expose partners to financial consequences if the firm’s position deteriorates materially.

With roughly $815,000 of debt attributed to each partner, a serious deterioration in the firm’s financial position could result in partners being asked to inject personal capital to support or repay the borrowings.

For some partners, particularly more junior ones, this could create significant personal financial pressure.

The fact that many partners already structure their personal affairs (such as holding the family home in a spouse’s name) to protect against this kind of liability underscores how real the risk is perceived to be within the firm.

KPMG International has reportedly blocked further partner exits both to ensure the firm retains enough partners to meet its client commitments and to prevent large capital repayments to departing partners at a time of financial stress. As a result, many partners now have no straightforward way to exit before potentially being asked to contribute personal capital.

The Reckoning Ahead

While tomorrow’s hearing will attract intense political and media attention, the firm’s financial structure — its $557 million in borrowings, the associated revenue covenants, and exposure to major client losses — represents a deeper challenge.

Hundreds of partners and thousands of employees have their careers and financial interests tied to KPMG Australia. The vast majority played no role in the issues under scrutiny.

It is notable that Andrew Yates, the former CEO during whose tenure these issues emerged, is understood to be leaving with a substantial exit package, while many remaining partners could face requests to contribute personal capital if the firm requires additional support.

The coming months will test whether KPMG Australia can retain key clients and manage its banking relationships successfully. The combination of reputational damage and high financial leverage creates a challenging environment, and the firm’s ability to navigate these pressures without further disruption remains to be seen.

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.

Employees at the Big Four are being given conflicting messages. The amount of time they save by using AI is now a performance metric, with dashboards tracking usage and heavy messaging about the productivity gains expected by leadership.

Senior partners are even making it clear that there is no future in the firm for anyone who does not wholeheartedly embrace the technology.

But there is a conundrum – the expectation is that employees not only save time and squeeze more work in during the day, but that they should also avoid the biggest problem that anyone using AI needs to beware of – the hallucination trap.

An AI Mishap at KPMG International

Take the most recent example of one of the Big Four landing in an uncomfortable spotlight after publishing an AI-generated report.

On June 12, GPTZero published an article revealing that one of KPMG International’s flagship reports, “Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI” (released in October 2025) included several case studies about reputable firms such as UBS, Swiss Federal Railways, and Transport for London that were figments of the AI’s imagination.

The report included claims such as:

UBS “integrates AI agents across investment advisory, risk management and compliance monitoring .. These agents operate within a composable platform co-developed with Microsoft, enabling personalised, efficient and compliant financial journeys.”

Swiss Federal Railways uses AI agents to “help users plan, book, and optimise journeys based on preferences, real-time conditions and carbon impact, turning SBB into a holistic mobility orchestrator”.

Transport for London uses AI agents “to predict and manage congestion, personalise commuter updates and co-ordinate multimodal transport”.

Sounds impressive, right?

Yes – but the problem is that the majority of these claims are simply not true.

When the GPTZero article was published, the companies who were name dropped in the report checked it out and soon published a denial,

UBS called the assertions “factually incorrect,” Swiss Federal Railways confirmed it was “not accurate,” and others including the UK’s NHS and Transport for London told the FT that the claims about their AI usage were untrue or misleading.

KPMG’s AI had been asked to write a report about how great AI is, and it decided to follow the maxim “fake it till you make it,” inventing the majority of the story.

Of the 45 references in the report, only 5 checked out.

The rest were either totally made up, or even worse, half truths, because the AI got a real paper and twisted its contents to prove its thesis – a phenomenon the authors of the report refer to as vibe citations.

“Vibe Citations can include references that are entirely fabricated (fake authors, fake title, and fake container/locators), fusions of two or more real references (authors of paper A paired with the title of paper B), or paraphrased or heavily altered versions of real citations.”

GPTZero

Now it would be easy to point the finger of blame at the report’s authors, BUT the question is: how much time were they given to research and write the report?

Were they told that they should now be able to do it in half the time they usually do, because they have a trusty assistant AI agent to do the heavy lifting for them?

Did they have the time to go through each reference to check that they were not being led astray by AI hallucinations?

“We expect all our people to follow our guidelines on the responsible use of AI, including human oversight to validate content and verify independent sources.” KPMG

I think that what we are seeing at play is the obvious result of firms that have rushed to adopt the new technology, out of an abundance of FOMO, without first putting in place the guardrails and governance required to ensure that AI does not take its staff for a ride.

It’s Not Just KPMG

Deloitte and EY have also had their major embarrassments here.

Deloitte Got Caught Out Twice – in Australia and in Canada

Targeted Compliance Framework Assurance Review

The first incident was the AU$440,000 “Targeted Compliance Framework Assurance Review” for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations — a hefty report on how the government automates welfare penalties that was finalized in Summer 2025.

The report included recommendations and options to strengthen the Targeted Compliance Framework in the future – thus potentially having serious real-life consequences.

The problem? The report was riddled with fabricated references to non-existent academic papers and even a made-up quote from a federal court judgment.

Sydney University Deputy Director of Health Law Chris Rudge spotted the bogus citations – referencing academic papers supposedly published by Lisa Burton Crawford, a professor at the University of Sydney law school, and Carolyn Adams, an Honorary Senior Lecturer at Macquarie Law School – and alerted the media.

Deloitte is “advising on a very serious matter that applies to hundreds of thousands of people across the Commonwealth, I would expect a high degree of diligence.”

Chris Rudge, speaking to the Australian Financial Review

The government quietly published a revised version after Deloitte admitted they had used generative AI (Azure OpenAI GPT-4o) for core parts of the analysis without initially disclosing it.

Deloitte confirmed some footnotes and references were incorrect, added a disclaimer to the updated report, and agreed to a partial refund of the fee.

“It is concerning to see research attributed to me in this way. I would like to see an explanation from Deloitte as to how the citations were generated.”

Lisa Burton Crawford, speaking to the Australian Financial Review

Health Human Resources Plan

And then there’s Deloitte Canada.

In May 2025, the firm delivered a 526-page Health Human Resources Plan to the Newfoundland and Labrador government — a $1.6 million report meant to guide critical decisions about hospitals, staffing, and healthcare delivery across the province.

The recommendations made related to recruitment strategies, virtual care, monetary recruitment and retention incentives, and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers.

Local journalists later discovered that several citations simply didn’t exist. Papers were referenced that were never published, authors were credited on work they hadn’t done, and some sources appeared to be complete fabrications.

“...if public funds are being allocated to private companies, we should expect higher standards. If a human employee made this error, it would likely result in disciplinary action. This is unacceptable and warrants immediate attention.”

Jerry Earle, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees

EY Canada’s Phantom Case Studies

A recent investigation published by GPTZero in May addressed hallucinations in EY Canada’s “Points of Attack: Uncovering Cyber Threats and Fraud in Loyalty Systems” cybersecurity report.

They found that 16 of the 27 references in the report were fictitious, with footnotes pointing to dead pages or information that simply wasn’t there. EY pulled the study down quickly once the GPTZero article went live.

Polluting the Knowledge Base

Beyond reputational damage to the firms themselves, these incidents have a broader, harder-to-reverse effect. When the Big Four publish a report, it is then used as a reputable reference by other entities.

According to GPTZero, for example, the hallucinated facts were then referenced by publications such as CXM, CX Dive, and Mi3, and a Czech newspaper.

Suddenly the “alternative facts” become part of the established canon of knowledge – and simply retracting the report does not fix that problem.

The genie is by then out of the bottle.

The Big Four are probably scrambling to check any report they published over the last year or so – but the more important thing they should be doing is create a system to double check every report generated using AI and being honest about using the technology whenever they do.

They can check out the wording at the bottom of this newsletter for inspiration – using AI is not something to be ashamed of, but covering up its use, and not checking the content of a report generated by AI is.

“AI Use Disclosure: This newsletter was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI tools. All analysis, opinions, judgments, and final edits are fully human. Every fact was verified and the content carefully reviewed by the editor.”

What This Means for Audit

EY has integrated advanced AI capabilities across its global assurance platform supporting more than 160,000 audit engagements. KPMG is using AI to scan millions of accounting entries, Deloitte has embedded GenAI and agentic tools in its Omnia audit platform, and PwC is rolling out end-to-end AI-driven audit solutions expected in 2026.

This raises some uncomfortable questions:

What happens when the same approach used in these research reports moves into audit work?

Have auditors been given the time and tools to properly validate what their AI tools are producing?

And if hallucinations start appearing in audited financials, how quickly could small errors turn into restatements, regulatory action, or a broader loss of confidence in financial reporting?

The uncomfortable reality is that the Big Four are pushing AI into some of their most sensitive work while still struggling to get the basics right on relatively simple research reports.

If firms can’t reliably fact-check citations in a policy paper, audit committees have every reason to ask what safeguards are in place when the same tools are shaping financial statements and assurance opinions.

Clients pay premium rates for professional judgment. At some point, they may start questioning whether they’re still getting it — or whether they’re paying for an expensive form of autocomplete.

Final Thoughts

These incidents are a warning sign. The Big Four have moved quickly to adopt AI, often under pressure to demonstrate productivity gains. But speed has come at the expense of basic quality controls.

The firms will likely improve their internal processes after these embarrassments. But the more important question is whether they’ll slow down enough to make those controls meaningful — or whether the pressure to show AI-driven efficiency will continue to outpace proper oversight.

Emerging best practices show what meaningful controls can look like in practice.

One approach is the introduction of mandatory citation verification workflows: every reference suggested or generated by AI must be independently validated against the original source by a qualified human reviewer, with the reviewer’s name and confirmation logged as part of the deliverable’s quality record.

Another is the adoption of standardised AI disclosure standards in all published reports and client deliverables — clearly stating the extent of AI assistance and confirming that key facts and citations have undergone independent human review. These measures directly address the need for systematic oversight and transparency already highlighted in the key takeaways.

For now, clients and regulators should be paying close attention — and specifically asking whether these kinds of verification workflows and transparency controls are firmly embedded in the firms’ processes. Because when AI errors move from research reports into audited financial statements, the consequences will be significantly harder to walk back.

The KPMG storm in Australia shows no signs of abating. This edition builds on last week’s ‘Chaos Down Under,’ so if you still haven’t read it, I recommend starting there before diving into this one.

Reading that edition will bring you up to speed on the mishandled whistleblower complaint and the litany of misbehaviour by senior KPMG partners — from the hiding of illicitly obtained Lendlease board papers in a locker, to the Dexus Lunchgate laptop leak and the Optus data breach, and even a partner accepting Taylor Swift concert tickets from a client.

This week has seen several important new developments emerge.

Eileen Hoggett has been demoted from chief operating officer, though she remains an audit partner. The whistleblower — a former KPMG Audit Director — accused her of misappropriating confidential Lendlease board papers, including pitch decks submitted by rival firms.

The board overruled recommendations from chief legal counsel Louise Capon and head of people Dorothy Hisgrove for a significantly tougher penalty following the firm’s internal investigation and an external review by Ashurst, opting instead for her demotion from the executive role.

Notably, she has not resigned from the firm, even after Dexus refused to allow her to sign its financial statements. Some observers have speculated that she may still be negotiating her exit package — particularly after former CEO Andrew Yates reportedly received a retirement payout of around A$2.9 million.

Paul Rogers, the second audit partner accused of misusing confidential board documents, has been stood down from key client accounts. This means he can no longer act as the signing auditor on those engagements.

Jeff O’Sullivan, Head of Internal Audit Services, who is implicated in the Lunchgate allegations, has received a sanction, though the details have not been disclosed.

Consequences Mount: Regulatory Scrutiny and Institutional Damage

The fallout from this scandal is accelerating rapidly. Lendlease has placed its 68-year audit relationship with KPMG under review and is widely expected to terminate it once current financial year reporting concludes.

Westpac is considering re-tendering its audit work, just two years after awarding the mandate to KPMG. The bank is also reportedly pushing the firm to contribute to the multimillion-dollar costs of the tender process.

NSW Treasury Secretary Michael Coutts-Trotter sent a formal letter to KPMG demanding assurances that the firm did not mishandle confidential government information, while the Victorian government has placed its contracts with KPMG under review over data misuse concerns.

The Department of Finance has explicitly warned KPMG that it could be banned from bidding for new Commonwealth contracts due to repeated failures to disclose serious internal allegations of client data misuse.

The Reserve Bank of Australia has confirmed it will re-tender its whistleblower hotline contract, which ironically is currently run by KPMG.

Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino has also indicated that recent events have brought previous recommendations for reforming the professional services sector back on the table – so the debacle is now likely to also hit PwC, Deloitte and EY.

And there is also ASIC’s formal investigation underway and a parliamentary hearing on 19 June for the firm to reckon with.

No wonder so many partners are trying to leave. The exodus has accelerated to such a point that KPMG International has reportedly stepped in to block exits, amid concerns that the firm could soon run short of auditors needed to meet its obligations.

Musical Chairs at KPMG: Stan Stavros and the Leadership Credibility Crisis

After Chairman Martin Sheppard accepted the resignations of CEO Andrew Yates and National Managing Partner for Audit and Assurance Julian McPherson, the national board appointed Stan Stavros — formerly the National Managing Partner for Deal Advisory & Infrastructure — as interim CEO.

The selection of Stavros is puzzling. How does it make sense — and what message does it send — to replace Yates with a senior partner who was closely associated with the firm’s previous major whistleblower controversy, the Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) affair?

In an email to partners, the interim CEO emphasised:

“I come to this role not having been involved in the whistleblower process, but it is clear to me that we should have handled things differently. I am 100 per cent committed and will ensure we approach the issues in the right way.”

While it may be technically true that Stavros was not directly involved in the current scandal, his senior leadership role during the earlier TAHE scandal seriously undermines his credibility to champion better internal whistleblower practices and governance standards.

Brendan Lyon, the former KPMG partner who raised serious concerns about alleged accounting improprieties, potential conflicts of interest in dual-client advice, and significant public safety risks stemming from the proposed structure and rushed implementation of the railway project, named Stavros under oath as one of the executives he escalated his concerns to.

In 2021, Lyon was subpoenaed to appear and produce documents during the public inquiry into TAHE. He submitted extensive evidence to substantiate his claims that he had been bullied and pressured to modify his conclusions about the rail development — including an SMS chain with his boss, Stan Stavros.

In a written submission to the committee in January 2022, Lyon stated:

“Sadly, despite repeated reports of my poor treatment and explicit discussion with Mr Stavros about the ethical and potentially legal breaches by KPMG personnel and others, Mr Stavros expressed that he couldn’t help due to the seniority of the personnel involved and that he was Melbourne based.”

Over a year later, on 6 September 2023 — by which time he had been appointed Professor of Practice at the University of Wollongong’s Faculty of Business and Law — Lyon appeared again before the Public Accountability and Works Committee. The following extract from his testimony, where he talks about KPMG’s internal whistleblower policy, is particularly telling:

“I made countless written reports under that policy, including to the CEO, Andrew Yates; ... the head of my practice group, Stanley Stavros, now on the national executive committee of KPMG; and, of course, to my second partner, Paul Low, KPMG’s head of government, who appeared before you yesterday.”

Lyon’s sworn testimony paints a concerning picture of a senior leader who, when confronted with serious internal ethical concerns, chose not to intervene, citing hierarchy and geography as reasons for inaction. Such a response sits uncomfortably with Stavros’s current assurance that he will “approach the issues in the right way.”

The decision to appoint a partner tainted by prior association with inadequate handling of whistleblower concerns, in a scandal that caused KPMG significant reputational damage, suggests one of two uncomfortable possibilities: either the board is poorly informed about the firm’s recent history, or the partnership lacks sufficient untainted leadership talent to offer a cleaner break from the past.

Conflicts of Interest on the KPMG Board

This situation is further complicated by a significant perceived conflict at the very top of the firm.

Chairman Martin Sheppard is in a long-term romantic relationship with KPMG audit partner Suzanne Bell, who led the firm’s internal “war room” — a dedicated team working on bids to win new audit engagements.

According to the speech given under parliamentary privilege by Senator Deborah O’Neill on March 24, the whistleblower reported that during one of these tender strategy sessions:

“On 6 November 2023, a meeting was held at KPMG’s Barangaroo office … during that meeting, and despite acknowledged independence sensitivities, an arrangement was proposed where (one of the people present) would leave his laptop open with Dexus internal audit documents visible while he went for lunch, allowing external audit personnel to view them.”

The person who strategically took off for lunch was the head of internal audit services, Jeff O’Sullivan. KPMG admits that he indeed made the problematic comment, but classified it as an “inappropriate remark” and a “joke” — although this is then put into question because O’Sullivan was sanctioned internally for his behaviour.

The whistleblower has stated that the comment was not made in jest. He claims it was intended to allow the team working on the Dexus tender to view confidential client information.

Notably, when external lawyers were brought in to investigate the allegations in 2024, they did not speak to anyone else who had been present in the room. This may help explain why the investigators concluded there was no evidence to support the whistleblower’s claims.

Whatever the context of the comment in question, there can be no denying that O’Sullivan’s very presence in the room where the bid was being drafted was improper, raising serious questions about the independence protocols and Chinese walls at KPMG, particularly given Dexus had received assurances that robust safeguards were in place.

And while there has so far been no indication that Bell is implicated in these events, her presence is uncomfortably close to many of the confidentiality breaches that the firm is currently being accused of.

Given these circumstances, Sheppard’s central role in accepting resignations and appointing Stan Stavros invites legitimate questions about impartiality. At a time when the firm’s governance is under intense scrutiny, optics matter. KPMG cannot afford even the slightest perception that personal and partner relationships may be influencing key leadership decisions.

The KPMG board recently launched a fourth investigation into the whistleblower’s claims. However, this was not initiated by Chairman Martin Sheppard. It was forced through by its three independent directors at the time — Jane Hemstritch, Patty Akopiantz, and former NSW Premier Mike Baird — after the whistleblower contacted them directly and insisted the matter be properly examined.

Mike Baird stepped down from the board in September 2025. Reports indicate his resignation was driven by frustration with the firm’s initial handling of the whistleblower complaints and the lack of decisive action, as well as the role being restructured to require meetings in Singapore.

After his departure, the board — rather than making a clean break and engaging a legal firm with no prior involvement — re-appointed Allens, the same firm whose earlier investigation KPMG had admitted “lacked rigour.”

The Allens investigation remains ongoing.

KPMG International’s Abdication of Responsibility

The whistleblower first raised concerns internally in 2024. After the firm’s initial reviews found no evidence of wrongdoing, he escalated the matter to KPMG International in 2025.

According to reports in the Financial Times, he even emailed Bill Thomas, the International Chair and Chief Executive of KPMG, and Anne Collins, the KPMG Global General Counsel, describing the unethical behaviour that he had witnessed in the Australia firm.

The correspondence continued for months — the AFR reports that it viewed emails dated August 2025 in which the whistleblower described 17 separate allegations — but in the end he was told that it was not within KPMG International’s remit to investigate these claims, and they washed their hands of the entire affair.

The problem with this excuse is that KPMG operates an International hotline specifically for such situations:

“for KPMG personnel, clients and other third parties (such as suppliers, contractors, sub-contractors, external consultants, alliance partners, or other third party resource) to confidentially report concerns they have relating to certain areas of activity by any KPMG International entity, activities of KPMG firms or KPMG personnel.”

This begs the question — what on earth is this whistleblower hotline for if employees who make serious reports are then told that nothing can be done because the global entity has “no control” over the local entities?

This was not the first time that KPMG International failed employees who used this hotline, and also not the first time that Bill Thomas ended up in the limelight for ignoring multiple whistleblower reports made by KPMG staff.

In 2022 the Financial Times reported that employees in KPMG UAE had filed multiple complaints about the behaviour of the local CEO, Nader Haffar — both in writing and via the hotline — over the previous three years.

The FT article includes the following quote from an email sent by a KPMG employee to Bill Thomas in 2022:

“Many of us ask how we can credibly advise clients and provide assurance to shareholders, when our own leadership fail to uphold our most basic values which we broadcast as being sacrosanct.”

Clearly, the mishandling of whistleblower allegations is endemic — and dare I say it, systemic by design — in the firm.

Out With the Old and In with the New

Bill Thomas is now in the final months of his term as International CEO and Chair and will be replaced on October 1 by Gary Wingrove.

Mr Wingrove was the CEO of KPMG Australia while the Brendan Lyon case was playing out, so the concerns I expressed above about Stan Stavros also apply to him.

The following is a page from Prof Lyon’s submission to the parliamentary commission in 2021, where he alleges that Wingrove attributed the saga that the exiting partner had gone through to the fact that he had not been properly integrated within the firm.

This exchange is very telling. As an anthropologist, and a lateral hire myself (I entered Deloitte as a non-equity partner in 2016, after selling them my two technology companies), Wingrove’s comment hits the nail on the head.

This is what corporate culture is about — the things that are understood between the lines. The stuff that is left unsaid. The actual priorities of an organisation, as opposed to the ones they trumpet on brochures and websites.

Wingrove was right — the whole kerfuffle with Lyon had happened because he had not fully integrated the culture of the firm into his professional identity yet.

Most of the partners in the Big Four are lifers, not lateral hires, and in the main they would have spent their entire career at the firms — straight out of school. The modus operandi of the firm they end up dedicating their professional life to becomes part and parcel of their identity as professionals, and the priorities of the firm become their own.

When a firm places heavy emphasis on revenue growth while only paying lip service to ethics and integrity, many partners absorb those priorities without much conscious resistance. It simply becomes “the way things are done.”

It is therefore no accident that the majority of whistleblowers are lateral hires or relative newcomers — they are the ones who experience the cognitive dissonance between what firm leaders do and what they say.

At this critical juncture, KPMG Australia needs more than another internal reshuffle. It requires credible leadership untainted by previous controversies — people with the independence and moral authority to drive genuine cultural reform and rebuild client trust.

Based on public reports and parliamentary records. Some matters remain under investigation.

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.

In This Issue

Havoc at KPMG

• The Lendlease Breach

• The Dexus Lunchgate

• Client Betrayal - Optus and Telstra

• Ominous Rumblings about the Macquarie Group Audit

• Eileen Hoggett - Concert Tickets and … a Promotion to CCO

• The Reckoning (So Far)

  • Government Pushback

  • Criminal & Regulatory Investigations

  • Client Backlash

  • The Decimation of Trust

• A Tainted Culture

Havoc at KPMG

The last couple of weeks have been total chaos for KPMG Australia, with a relentless drip-feed of revelations across the Australian Financial Review and other news outlets.

It’s been a slog trying to keep up with the dominoes as they fall. Here’s a summary for those who haven’t been able to follow every twist - although at the rate things are going, there might be new developments by the time you read this.

The situation has been brewing for two years. In 2024 a director submitted a report with dozens of allegations to the whistleblower contact person in the firm.

What followed was a series of inept attempts to put a lid on what was shaping up to be a major scandal, ranging from categorizing the source’s claims as “employee grievances” to avoid giving the reporter the whistleblower protections he was entitled to by law, to giving “investigators” very narrow briefs that excluded interviewing people who witnessed the reported events.

After several escalations that went all the way to the very top of KPMG globally, the whistleblower (strategically labelled the “aggrieved employee” by Australian leadership) was pushed out of the firm. At that point he went to the regulator, and after that too led to a lot of nothing, he approached Senator Deborah O’Neill.

What followed will go down in the annals of Big Four history.

On March 24, at 9:30pm, the Senator stood up in an almost empty parliament and read out a speech that set off tectonic shifts in KPMG world - with reverberations right through the professional services industry.

Using parliamentary privilege, she laid out allegations of partners inappropriately accessing and using confidential Lendlease board papers to gain a competitive edge in audit pitches for clients such as Westpac and Dexus.

She did not share much detail, but what started as a trickle soon turned into a flood of allegations in the press.

👉 View the Full KPMG Scandal Timeline Presentation

The Lendlease Breach

The whistleblower claims, and KPMG has partially admitted, that the auditors abused their access to board documents on Lendlease’s online system, Diligent, to peruse highly confidential board documents which were not meant for their eyes.

In late 2023, Lendlease issued a bid for quotations for their external audit, as they assessed whether to retain KPMG or take their business elsewhere. The subcommittee of the Audit Committee that was overseeing the bid set up a folder on Diligent, where they saved documents such as the tenders received.

The problem was that they did not restrict access.

Anyone who had access to the board documents could access the folder – and when KPMG auditors found out, access it they did, gaining crucial insights into their competitors’ presentations and, I assume, other valuable data such as pricing.

Reports further detail that two senior partners, Eileen Hoggett (then a senior audit partner, now COO) and Paul Rogers, physically removed board documents, stored them in a locker, and circulated them internally.

Allegedly, this intelligence helped KPMG one-up Deloitte, PwC, and EY to win the Westpac external audit — a major coup for the firm.

The Dexus Lunchgate

I wrote about this case in last week’s issue of Big4News, but I will summarize it here for the sake of completeness.

KPMG had been Dexus’ internal auditor for several years, but when the company issued a call for tenders for their external audit, the partners were determined to expand their slice of the pie and bid for this work too – notwithstanding the fact that having the same firm conduct both the internal and external audits is not ideal because of potential independence issues.

The Dexus Audit Committee initially demurred, but they ultimately decided to allow KPMG to throw their hat in the ring, making it clear that they expected robust Chinese Walls to be put in place between the internal and external auditors, to ensure a level playing field for all bidders.

What did they get instead?

Allegedly, a war room led by audit partner Suzanne Bell, who is in a long-term romantic relationship with KPMG Australia Chairman Martin Sheppard - a relationship that has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest, both perceived and actual.

In one session, according to the whistleblower, an internal audit partner announced he was going for lunch and left his laptop open, displaying restricted Dexus information for the bid team to read.

KPMG ultimately won the $2.5 million engagement.

Client Betrayal - Optus and Telstra

This case is, arguably, the most shocking of the three – because it involves an alleged betrayal of a loyal client that KPMG has audited for 34 years.

Once again we return to the tenders command centre, where a bid team was working on a proposal for Optus rival, Telstra.

According to the whistleblower (these claims were later confirmed by investigators from a law firm engaged by the KPMG board), Optus auditors shared highly sensitive, confidential information about their client with the team preparing the Telstra bid.

This time, the breach did not pay off. Deloitte won the engagement.

Rumblings about the Macquarie Group Audit

Details have not yet fully emerged regarding this case, but the whistleblower has alleged that KPMG leveraged internal information gained through its close connections — specifically via Michelle Hinchliffe, a Macquarie director and former senior KPMG audit partner (including former head of audit at KPMG UK) — to secure the audit tender.

The Macquarie Group audit is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious and lucrative mandates in the Australian and Asia-Pacific market. It is worth around A$75 million annually total fees — with the core Australian component around $30 million. KPMG’s successful bid to wrest the role from PwC in late 2025 was seen as a major strategic victory for the firm.

These remain unproven allegations at this stage, and further details are expected to surface as the Senate inquiry and regulatory probes continue.

Eileen Hoggett - Concert Tickets and … a Promotion to CCO

In the barrage of information that has emerged over the last week or so there were another two important titbits.

Eileen Hoggett - who we last mentioned in relation to the misappropriation of Lendlease board documents – reportedly accepted corporate box tickets to a Taylor Swift concert for herself and family members from Link Group, a major client where KPMG served as auditor.

The timing makes it particularly awkward. Link Group had faced a significant restatement in prior years following ASIC concerns over the valuation of its Funds Solutions business. This led to material adjustments to reported losses and a reduced profit outlook — events that directly hit investor confidence and share price.

While the Swift tickets themselves didn’t cause the restatement, accepting lavish hospitality from a client during such a sensitive reporting period raises legitimate questions: How objective can an auditor be when they (and their family) are enjoying corporate box perks courtesy of the company they’re supposed to scrutinise independently?

And finally, adding insult to injury, Hoggett was promoted to Chief Operating Officer of KPMG Australia after the firm had been alerted about her alleged improprieties by the whistleblower.

The Reckoning (So Far)

After weeks of relentless headlines, KPMG Australia finally blinked.

On May 29, the firm announced that CEO Andrew Yates and National Managing Partner of Audit Julian McPherson had both resigned, effective immediately. The Board appointed Stan Stavros, National Managing Partner of Deal Advisory & Infrastructure, as interim CEO.

In a statement that read like it had been lawyered within an inch of its life, KPMG admitted that its handling of the whistleblower and the subsequent investigations “fell short” of expected standards.

They’ve apologised — to the whistleblower, to their people, and to the broader community — and say they’re now reviewing everything from whistleblower protections to how they investigate serious complaints.

Some partners have already been sanctioned internally. It’s the closest thing we’ve seen to genuine accountability from a Big Four firm in Australia since the PwC tax leaks disaster.

Government Pushback

KPMG is undoubtedly hoping that having offered two of its most senior partners as sacrificial lambs will make the problem go away. That is unlikely. Senator Deborah O’Neill, who lit the fuse back in March with her parliamentary speech, shows no signs of letting this go.

She has been hammering the Big Four for years on audit quality, conflicts of interest, and cultural issues, and this scandal has given her plenty of fresh ammunition.

A Senate inquiry is now actively digging into the matter, with another public hearing scheduled for June 19. Expect more uncomfortable questions about not just KPMG, but the entire self-regulated ecosystem the Big Four have enjoyed for far too long.

The senator has made it clear she wants real structural change — not another round of corporate apologies, musical chairs at the top, and promises to “do better.”

Whether she gets it is another question. History suggests the Big Four are very good at surviving scandals. But this one feels different. The combination of multiple client breaches, a high-profile whistleblower, and sustained parliamentary heat has made this harder to contain.

KPMG’s attempts to contain the fallout have themselves come under scrutiny. The firm is now claiming legal professional privilege over key internal investigation documents, and has pushed for a closed-door parliamentary hearing. These moves are widely seen as efforts to shield partners and limit public accountability.

There’s also a growing risk that this scandal could hit KPMG where it really hurts — in the wallet. The Department of Finance has issued a blunt warning that the firm could be banned from bidding on Commonwealth government contracts after repeatedly failing to disclose the full extent of the whistleblower allegations to officials. This isn’t just embarrassing — it’s potentially existential.

KPMG partners are undoubtedly painfully aware of the precedent set three years ago during the PwC tax leaks scandal. When it was revealed that PwC partners had misused confidential government tax information to advise multinational clients on how to avoid new anti-avoidance rules, the consequences were swift and severe.

The firm was forced to sell its entire government consulting business to a private equity firm for a nominal $1 — a unit previously valued at well over $100 million and generating roughly $600–680 million in annual revenue.

Overall, PwC suffered a 26% revenue drop from $3.17 billion in FY2023 to $2.35 billion in FY2024, lost hundreds of partners and thousands of staff, and saw major client relationships erode. Partner remuneration was cut and public trust collapsed.

The parallels are stark. If KPMG faces a similar ban from new Commonwealth contracts the financial damage would be enormous, triggering reduced partner distributions, accelerated talent flight, further private-sector client defections, and long-term reputational damage that would be difficult to repair.

Criminal & Regulatory Investigations

On Friday, during a parliamentary hearing of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, it was revealed that the alleged theft or misuse of confidential client documentation by KPMG personnel could constitute a breach of criminal law.

This marked a significant escalation, shifting the matter from primarily ethical, professional, and regulatory concerns into potential law-enforcement territory.

Meanwhile, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched a preliminary investigation into the conduct of three registered company auditors at the firm.

ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke confirmed the probe during the same parliamentary hearing. She explained that the regulator will focus on alleged misconduct involving the inappropriate sharing and potential use of confidential client information. Potential repercussions include cancellation or suspension of registration, fines, or other sanctions.

In my view, this narrow focus on individual partners risks missing the forest for the trees — the real issue is systemic and demands scrutiny of KPMG Australia’s culture, governance, and incentive structures as a whole.

That said, the regulator has not ruled out expanding its scope - so there might be some developments there.

Client Backlash

Client rumblings are also growing louder: Lendlease CEO Tony Lombardo described the firm’s actions as “not acceptable” in a letter to the parliamentary committee and confirmed the company is in active discussions with KPMG about next steps.

Earlier today Lendlease publicly stated that it is reviewing its audit services with KPMG and is actively beginning the process to change auditors.

Key quote from Lendlease (issued Monday, June 1, 2026)

“It is not appropriate to make a change in auditors this close to financial year end. We will be reviewing our audit services following the completion of FY26 reporting.”

In other words, Lendlease intends to end its 68-year audit relationship with KPMG. An ignominious termination which presages many other clients fleeing the firm.

Other impacted clients, including Optus and Telstra, have been formally notified of the breaches, while broader concerns continue to surface about the integrity of audits delivered to major Australian corporates.

The Decimation of Trust

The resignations may have been intended as a circuit-breaker, but the scandal’s ripple effects are widening. KPMG’s alleged breaches strike at the heart of private-sector confidence.

ASX-listed companies are particularly unsettled. Auditors are privy to the most sensitive board deliberations—strategy, mergers, financial forecasts—and the idea that this information could be weaponized for competitive pitches shatters the implicit trust that underpins the entire audit model.

There may also be significant ramifications for KPMG’s forensic department, which offers independent whistleblower reporting services to major clients through its “FairCall” service — a conflict that Senator Deborah O’Neill highlighted when she remarked that the discovery of institutions like the Reserve Bank of Australia and the ASX using the service “just blows my mind.”

A Tainted Culture

It’s good that two senior heads have rolled. The resignations of CEO Andrew Yates and audit chief Julian McPherson on May 29 were necessary, and the firm’s admission that its handling of the whole affair “fell short” is at least a start.

But let’s not pretend this cleans the slate.

The most uncomfortable question hanging over this scandal is not just what a handful of partners did — it’s how many people knew. Partners on the bids, employees in the war rooms, internal auditors who saw documents being passed around, senior leaders who signed off on narrow investigations… the list goes on.

Yet only one person had the courage to put their career on the line and speak up.

You can’t entirely blame those who chose to keep their heads below the parapet. They watched as the original whistleblower was labelled, sidelined, and eventually pushed out. The message sent from the top was crystal clear: rock the boat at your peril.

That’s the real cultural failure here.

When a professional services firm — one that lectures clients on ethics, governance, and whistleblower protections — creates an environment where employees are scared of calling out serious misconduct, something is deeply rotten.

The “eat what you kill” partnership model, the obsession with winning every pitch, and the cosy relationships at the top are not conducive to ethical behaviour - when all is fair in love and war, lines get crossed.

And here’s the longer-term worry: what are they teaching the next generation?

Younger partners and senior managers are being moulded by people who allegedly believe it is acceptable to rifle through a client’s confidential documents, breach Chinese Walls when it suits them, and treat uncomfortable questions as mere “employee grievances.”

Culture isn’t shaped by press releases and apologies. It’s shaped by what behaviour gets rewarded — and what gets punished.

Until KPMG (and the rest of the Big Four) confront this properly, we’ll likely see more of these scandals. Because the real problem isn’t a few rogue partners. It’s a culture that made their behaviour feel normal.

This scandal has the potential to be a turning point. Whether it leads to genuine structural reform or another cycle of apologies and minimal change will depend on sustained pressure from regulators, parliament, and clients.

Based on public reports and parliamentary records. Some matters remain under investigation.

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.

In This Issue

• EY — Toxic Culture at EY Oceania: One Death, Multiple Warnings, and Still No Real Change

• Deloitte — Federal Court Greenlights Trade Secrets Case Against Deloitte for CDC Vaccine Tech

• KPMG - Lunchgate: Whistleblower Claims about KPMG’s Dexus Laptop Leak

Toxic Culture at EY Oceania: One Death, Multiple Warnings, and Still No Real Change

On 27 August 2022, around midnight, 27-year-old Aishwarya Venkatachalam took her own life, jumping from a terrace on the 11th floor of EY’s Sydney office building. The senior auditor had moved from India to Australia less than a year earlier, for what she had described as her “dream job” with the firm.

Aishwarya had spent the evening with colleagues at an EY social event at The Ivy nightclub in Sydney’s Central Business District — but three women came across her crying in a nearby car park late that evening. When they approached to offer help, she told them that “everyone was so mean to her in her office” and that the people working there were “mean and racist.”

These statements echoed what she had told her best friend, Neeti Bisht, about the work environment at EY, four months prior to her death.

Initial Response and Backlash

EY’s Sydney employees were initially stunned by the tragedy. However, their shock quickly gave way to widespread frustration over the firm’s handling of the situation.

Much of this anger centred on CEO David LaRocca’s town hall address to roughly 9,000 staff across Oceania. In the nearly hour-long speech, he devoted just four minutes to her death, referring to Aishwarya Venkatachalam only as “one of our Sydney assurance team members,” without mentioning her by name.

The hashtag #SayHerName quickly gained traction on LinkedIn and other platforms.

Larocca later justified the omission by stating the firm was “working to maintain space and privacy for Ms Venkatachalam’s family.”

In the aftermath, current and former employees took to LinkedIn, Reddit, and the press to publicly share experiences of bullying, racism, and overwork at EY, with many directly linking the firm’s toxic culture to the tragedy. One former staffer told Daily Mail Australia:

“Those days with EY Sydney were just so miserable. One day, I literally broke down cause of the unfairness and burnt out and cried so much at home. Luckily I have my family and friends to support me . … The partners in that team tend to treat Asian workers like a dog as they expect those workers can always work hard and can deliver more.”

Independent Review

In response to the backlash, EY Oceania commissioned an independent review led by Elizabeth Broderick, former Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The review, which gathered input from over 4,000 current and former employees, was released in July 2023.

While a majority of employees reported that they found their workplace to be a respectful environment, with leadership promoting good behavior (88%), it emerged that there were several systemic issues disproportionately harming vulnerable groups: juniors, women, and CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) staff.

The following are some of the worrying findings highlighted by the report:

Bullying: Around 15% of employees had experienced bullying at EY Oceania in the previous five years, with women (17%) more likely to have experienced bullying than men (13%).

“The Partners protect bullies. Often they are bullies and aggressive themselves.”

(p. 31)

Sexual harassment: 10% of staff reported experiencing sexual harassment, with women at 15% and men at 6%.

“There are some partners I wouldn’t be in a room alone with.”

(p. 31)

“There was a Partner who tapped a colleague on the bum after a presentation saying ‘good job’. Other women complained but nothing was done. He is known to have problematic behaviours but nothing is done because he brings in a lot of money.”

(p. 72)

Racism: Some 8% of staff had experienced racism, with a concentration amongst employees who identified as ethnically Indian (16%), Chinese (15%) or Māori (21%).

“I’ve witnessed racist slurs. I have seen a Partner ask one of my Chinese-origin colleagues in front of a whole meeting whether he eats dogs. [My Chinese-origin colleague] said he then was left out and not invited to a social event hosted by that Partner after. The worst part is that he and others felt unsafe to say anything.”

(p. 62)

Widespread overwork affecting nearly half the workforce’s mental and physical health.

Low trust in reporting mechanisms, with many fearing career repercussions for speaking up. Only 36% of those who were bullied, 17% of employees who had experienced sexual harassment and 7% of staff who faced racism, lodged a report about what had happened to them.

No accountability, especially for senior leaders.

In the aftermath of the report’s publication, EY leaders apologized to employees and committed to implementing each of the 27 recommendations made by Broderick.

Later Allegations and Lawsuit

Allegations have now emerged, however, that while Elizabeth Broderick and her team were conducting staff interviews, and senior EY partners were publicly assuring employees of their commitment to meaningful change, the firm was covering up a serious case of sexual harassment.

Intern Ofir Larsen alleges that in January 2023, during a work event at the K1 Karaoke Lounge in Sydney’s Haymarket, her manager Harry Young grabbed her right breast, slapped and gripped her left thigh, and made other unwanted physical contact.

After she raised the complaint internally, colleagues allegedly told her to “move on,” while she was shunned by the team and sidelined from several projects.

Larsen further claims she was prevented from participating in Broderick’s culture review survey.

EY has admitted certain aspects of her account — including her exclusion from the survey — but strongly denies any retaliation or victimisation. Larsen is now pursuing legal action against the firm in the Federal Court, seeking damages and greater accountability.

A Parting Shot from Cameron Bird

The firm’s commitment to change was further cast into doubt in January 2026 when veteran EY Oceania partner Cameron Bird — with 19 years at the firm, including a decade as a partner in the infrastructure advisory team — resigned and delivered a scathing farewell email to staff.

Instead of the usual polite goodbyes, Bird excoriated the leadership as “autocratic” and criticised a “rigid, top-down” hierarchical culture dominated by executives obsessed with “career progression and personal gain” and with little genuine regard for staff wellbeing. He declared he could “no longer tolerate the direction the firm is taking,” accusing senior leaders of being “fixated on how things looked rather than how people were treated.”

Not exactly a vote of confidence.

The Challenges of Stamping Out Toxicity

EY Oceania has reported progress on Broderick’s recommendations, including a new “people and culture index,” training programs, and reconciliation initiatives.

Yet here we are, three years later, and we are presented with a former intern suing the firm on one of the more serious issues EY had pledged to fix, alongside a senior partner publicly calling out the performative nature of the leadership.

Reviews and recommendations are easy. Real cultural change is hard — especially in a professional services model built on leverage, billable hours, and protecting rainmakers. When high-revenue partners face no real consequences for toxic behaviour, the message to everyone else is clear: speak up at your own risk.

Aishwarya Venkatachalam’s death should have been a turning point. Instead, it risks becoming another uncomfortable chapter in EY’s ongoing struggle with its own culture. Until the firm demonstrates genuine accountability — not just reports and apologies — these problems will continue to surface, with a devastating human cost.

Federal Court Greenlights Trade Secrets Case Against Deloitte for CDC Vaccine Tech

On April 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York denied Deloitte’s motion to dismiss trade secret misappropriation claims brought against it by the Multi-State Partnership for Prevention (MSPP). The judge ruled that MSPP had adequately substantiated its claim about the existence of protectable trade secrets, reasonable protective efforts, and misappropriation.

The plaintiff will now be able to proceed with its case, based on allegations that Deloitte had misappropriated confidential information about its vaccination management platform, PrepMod.

Pandemic Urgency, Demos, and a No-Bid Contract

The dispute originated in the early chaotic months of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in 2020. The CDC needed technology for appointment scheduling, distribution tracking, inventory management, and real-time reporting, so it invited companies which had relevant off-the-shelf solutions to present their platforms.

In April 2020, Tiffany Tate, executive director of MSPP, an organization experienced in immunization programs for underserved communities, presented PrepMod to the government agency. The software was designed specifically for large-scale vaccination scenarios, featuring advanced real-time tracking, bi-directional data flows with state registries, workflow efficiencies, and operational architectures tailored for national deployment. Deloitte employees were present for the demo — they were introduced to Tate as consultants assisting the CDC in the selection process.

Tate alleges the presentations included detailed, confidential slide decks marked “CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY,” live demonstrations of the software’s core functionalities, and technical discussions. She further alleges that confidentiality agreements were in place, which both the CDC and Deloitte had committed to.

One month later the CDC decided not to proceed with an off-the-shelf solution. Instead it awarded a sole-source (no-bid) contract to Deloitte to custom-build the Vaccine Administration Management System (VAMS), citing urgency and Deloitte’s existing GovConnect/Salesforce platform. The initial contract value was approximately $16 million, which then increased to $44–48 million with extensions — but according to court filings project costs ultimately exceeded $80 million.

MSPP sent a cease-and-desist letter in August 2020, alleging that VAMS specifications closely mirrored core PrepMod features that Tate had shown them during the demos.

Deloitte has denied the allegations, maintaining that VAMS was developed independently based on CDC requirements.

An Unsuccessful Deployment

Despite its high cost, VAMS proved largely unsuccessful in practice. It was offered for free to states and jurisdictions, but was only adopted by about nine states at the peak of the rollout.

Clinic staff in adopting states reported having to fall back on paper records after encountering persistent technical problems — website crashes, random appointment cancellations, unreliable registration processes, and difficulties integrating with existing state immunization registries.

Virginia switched from Deloitte’s VAMS to PrepMod in late January 2021 due to these glitches and other usability issues. Connecticut also sought alternatives. By early 2021, VAMS had facilitated only around 4% of total U.S. vaccinations, despite the substantial taxpayer investment.

PrepMod, on the other hand, was deployed in approximately 27 states, making it one of the more widely adopted third-party vaccine management systems during the pandemic. While it too faced scaling issues, sometimes crashing when under extreme load, it was generally praised for being customizable and user-friendly.

What Comes Next

The case now enters the discovery phase. MSPP has the opportunity to request internal Deloitte and CDC documents, emails, code repositories, design specifications, and communications from the critical April–May 2020 period. This could include depositions of key personnel involved in the presentations and contract award.

Deloitte has consistently denied the allegations and is expected to mount a vigorous defense as the case progresses.

Trade secrets litigation is notoriously sensitive, and often very expensive, so there is a good chance that MSPP and Deloitte will pursue some form of settlement. That said, if the case proceeds, it will involve expert testimony on software similarities and reach a jury trial potentially in late 2026 or 2027.

Lunchgate: Whistleblower Claims about KPMG’s Dexus Laptop Leak

“On 6 November 2023, a meeting was held at KPMG’s Barangaroo office. During that meeting, and despite acknowledged independence sensitivities, an arrangement was proposed where [an internal audit partner] would leave his laptop open with Dexus internal audit documents visible while he went for lunch, allowing external audit personnel to view them.”

Senator Deborah O’Neill read these claims into the Senate record on 24 March 2026 under parliamentary privilege, on behalf of a former senior KPMG executive.

“On 30 May 2024, I provided information to an eligible recipient within KPMG Australia for the purpose of invoking the statutory whistleblower provisions under the Corporations Act. The information disclosed concerned matters that I had reasonable grounds to suspect constituted misconduct or an improper state of affairs or circumstances in relation to a regulated entity. The concerns I intended to raise related to audit independence, misuse of confidential information, tender integrity failures, misleading of Parliament, examination misconduct and governance failures at the senior leadership level.”

The whistleblower had gone through all the channels available before going to the senator. They started by reporting the unethical behaviour to relevant executives. When that did not work, they escalated to KPMG’s independent directors, then the internal chair, and even the global council.

It was only when it became clear that KPMG leadership had no intention of taking action that the whistleblower took the matter outside the firm. First to the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and finally Senator O’Neill.

Out For Lunch

In 2023, KPMG was acting as Dexus’s internal auditor while simultaneously preparing a bid for the company’s external audit engagement, which was valued at approximately AU$2.5 million. This dual role created a clear independence conflict under professional standards, prompting Dexus executives to insist on strict separation between the internal audit team and the external bid team.

According to the whistleblower, KPMG partners reassured the client that there would be strict Chinese walls put in place between the two teams – but they then proceeded to enact a “wink, wink” charade.

The main allegation is that during a strategy meeting in a “war room” at KPMG’s Barangaroo office, an internal audit partner announced that he was off for lunch, making a show of leaving his laptop open with restricted Dexus internal audit documents visible on screen. The team preparing the bid took a peek at the sensitive material, gaining insights that enabled them to improve their pitch.

KPMG ultimately won the external audit engagement from incumbent PwC. According to the whistleblower, the information allegedly accessed during the November 2023 meeting contributed to the successful bid.

KPMG’s Defence: “Inappropriate Remark” but No Wrongdoing Found

KPMG has strongly rejected the characterisation of the incident as a deliberate breach. In statements following the Senate disclosure, the firm described the partner’s comment about going for lunch as an “inappropriate remark” that should not have been made.

However, KPMG has not provided any comment as to whether the laptop was in fact left unlocked and unattended with restricted Dexus internal audit documents visible on screen, nor has it clarified whether any members of the external audit bid team viewed the material.

The firm has also remained silent on the appropriateness of convening a joint “war room” strategy meeting between its internal audit team and external audit bid team while the independence conflict was active — an arrangement that appears to directly contradict the strict Chinese walls and separation commitments it had reportedly made to Dexus.

KPMG maintains that it commissioned two separate external law firms to investigate the whistleblower’s claims — one to review the firm’s own internal probe and another to conduct an independent assessment.

According to KPMG Chair Martin Sheppard and CEO Andrew Yates, these reviews were “unable to substantiate any claims of wrongdoing” on the basis of the information provided. The firm also noted that it repeatedly invited the whistleblower to supply additional evidence, reportedly on more than 20 occasions — although it has now emerged that when they did so they insisted on the employee signing a non-disclosure agreement and refused to guarantee any legal protection.

While some related conduct matters were identified and resulted in internal sanctions, KPMG maintains there was no compromise of Dexus’s confidential information or breach of auditor independence that affected the outcome of the external audit tender.

However, as discussed in last week’s issue of Big4News, the firm has already had to claw back previous claims of innocence in relation to other claims made by this very same whistleblower.

The firm admitted that contrary to its previous denials, it was in fact true that Eileen Hoggett (KPMG Australia’s Chief Operating Officer) and Paul Rogers (Senior Partner) had taken confidential Lendlease documents and shown them to members of the Westpac pitch team.

Pattern of Misconduct: Telstra, Macquarie and Other Claims

It is important to note that the Dexus and Lendlease cases are not the only claims made by this whistleblower. These included the improper disclosure and use of restricted Telstra documents — such as materials related to AI governance and internal practices — accessed via a Telstra-issued laptop during a live external audit tender.

The claims also highlighted broader issues, including systemic tender integrity failures, the inappropriate use of networks of former KPMG partners at client organisations to gain competitive advantages (including at Macquarie Group), potential misleading of Parliament, examination misconduct, governance failures at senior levels, and inadequate handling of whistleblower protections.

Ongoing Parliamentary Inquiry: What Happens Next

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services is conducting private hearings with the whistleblower to assess the evidence, and has the power to call KPMG partners for public testimony. KPMG has stated it is fully cooperating with the committee, ASIC, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ), and the Tax Practitioners Board.

After making protected disclosures in May 2024, the whistleblower was progressively sidelined and ultimately left KPMG. Senator Deborah O’Neill has characterised the sequence as retaliatory action — a pattern she says is all too common for whistleblowers in large professional services firms. As of May 2026, the whistleblower continues to cooperate with the ongoing Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry.

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.

In This Issue

• Anthropic & the Big Four — Major AI Partnership Developments

• PwC — Evergrande Liquidators Seek $8.4 Billion

• Deloitte — SCANA Settlement Finalized + Parental Leave Discrimination Lawsuit

• EY — UK Partner Demotions, Canada AI Report Retraction, Australia Tightens Parental Leave

• KPMG — Senior Partner Admits Misusing Confidential Client Files

Anthropic & the Big Four: The Arms Race is On

Over the last week, PwC and KPMG made major announcements about expanding their partnerships with Anthropic — PwC on May 14 and KPMG just yesterday on May 19 — and it’s shaping up to be a full-blown arms race among the Big Four. Deloitte got there early with its initial deal back in July 2024 and a major expansion in October 2025, while EY remains the only holdout, seemingly charting a somewhat different path.

Deloitte – The Early Adopter

Key Dates: Initial collaboration in July 2024; major expansion October 6, 2025.

Deloitte rolled Claude out to its entire global workforce of more than 470,000 people — Anthropic’s largest enterprise deployment at the time. They’ve built certification programs and are co-developing industry-specific solutions with strong compliance guardrails, focusing on regulated industries like financial services, healthcare, and public sector.

Clearly the firm’s approach has so far been using itself as a proof-of-concept of the benefits of AI, to then be able to credibly roll it out to clients.

PwC – Agentic Transformation

Key Dates: Earlier work in February 2026; major expansion May 14, 2026.

PwC is leaning hard into agentic AI, focusing on three core areas: building agentic AI systems for clients, incorporating AI into deal-making processes, and redesigning enterprise functions, with the “Office of the CFO” positioned as an early flagship application.

The multi-year initiative includes training and certifying 30,000 professionals (primarily in the US initially), rolling out specialized tools such as Claude Code (for agentic software development) and Claude Cowork (for productivity workflows integrated into documents, spreadsheets, and presentations), and establishing a joint Center of Excellence.

This direction signals a clear focus on deep transformation.

KPMG – Embedded AI

Key Date: Global alliance announced May 19, 2026 (yesterday).

KPMG is giving Claude to all 276,000+ employees and embedding it directly into core platforms via the new “KPMG Digital Gateway Powered by Claude” on Microsoft Azure. The firm has also been named Anthropic’s preferred partner for private equity and private capital markets.

Their main focus is building agentic workflows for tax, audit, advisory, and legal work — a move that plays directly to the immense strength of KPMG’s global tax practice.

EY – Sitting This One Out (For Now)

EY has made no major direct partnership announcement with Anthropic. Instead, the firm is doubling down on its own EY.ai Agentic Platform and alliances with players like Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Databricks. They remain very active in AI, especially in tax, risk, and finance transformation, but appear to prefer a broader, more independent ecosystem approach.

The AI Battle Ahead

This scramble isn’t surprising at all. Frontier AI like Claude is rapidly moving from experimental pilots to core business infrastructure, and the firms that can best weave it together with deep industry knowledge, regulatory expertise, and change-management muscle are positioning themselves for what looks like a massive wave of consulting and technology work ahead — the kind that will keep the next generation of Big Four partners very busy, and well compensated, indeed.

Evergrande Liquidators Seek $8.4 Billion from PwC

On Monday, the Hong Kong High Court heard the arguments for and against retaining PwC International as a defendant in the case brought by Evergrande’s liquidators, who are seeking 57 billion yuan ($8.4 billion) in damages from the firm over alleged negligent audits (primarily 2017–2020 financials, with focus on overstated revenues). Of the total, up to 38 billion yuan (~$5.5B) could apply to PwC International.

The firm has already incurred major penalties in relation to the Evergrande audits. PwC Hong Kong settled for HK$1.3 billion (~$166M) in fines/compensation in April 2026, while PwC China received a record 441 million yuan (~$62M) fine + 6-month suspension in 2024. The reputational damage has also been considerable, and ongoing, with two former PwC China partners involved in the audits detained under criminal investigation.

PwC International’s lawyer, Richard Handyside, argued that the global network entity was not involved in the failed audits in question, that Hong Kong/China firms are not its subsidiaries, and that it had no duty of care to Evergrande investors and other stakeholders. Liquidators Edward Middleton and Tiffany Wong (Alvarez & Marsal) countered that the international entity was nonetheless responsible for audit quality standards across the PwC network.

This case is shaping up as a major test of network liability for the entire Big Four — how much responsibility does the global coordinating entity bear for the work of member firms in high-risk jurisdictions like China?

Deputy High Court Judge Patrick Fung Pak-tung is expected to issue a decision by August.

Deloitte Finalizes SCANA Settlement

Deloitte has finalized a $34 million settlement with SCANA investors, resolving a six-year securities class action. The agreement, which received final court approval in March 2026, stems from claims that the firm’s clean audit opinions failed to flag major cost overruns and delays in the utility’s failed V.C. Summer nuclear project.

Notably, this outcome represents a shift from regulatory enforcement toward private litigation in the courts. Auditor liability cases have historically been extremely difficult for investors to win under securities law, making this one of the largest auditor settlements in the past decade and signaling growing potential for private actions to hold Big Four firms accountable when regulatory scrutiny eases.

Ex-Deloitte Employee Sues Over Parental Leave Discrimination

Joanne Kim Barela spent 13 years at Deloitte’s Human Capital Consulting practice, earning three promotions and consistently receiving “Strong” or “Exceptional” performance ratings.

She took approved protected leave in 2020 and 2024 for pregnancy-related conditions and newborn care. After both leaves, she returned to strong performance, receiving a $9,100 salary increase and a $37,700 bonus in 2025.

Despite this track record, Barela was terminated in December 2025 during a company-wide reduction in force. According to her complaint, her performance metrics were evaluated without accounting for her protected leave time, putting her at a disadvantage compared to colleagues who worked full years.

She has since filed charges with the California Civil Rights Department and the EEOC, and has received a right-to-sue letter.

EY UK Demotes Equity Partners

EY UK has demoted thirty consulting equity partners to salaried (non-equity) roles as part of a broader shift away from the traditional “job-for-life” partnership model. The moves, which have been ongoing since the firm introduced a salaried partner tier in 2022, aim to concentrate profits and rewards among top-performing partners amid slower growth and margin pressures in the UK market.

This quiet restructuring reflects a wider Big Four trend of prioritizing performance and profitability over tenure and loyalty, with affected partners retaining the title but losing access to the equity profit pool.

EY Canada Retracts Report after GPTZero Investigation Reveals Multiple Hallucinations

After the two AI faux pas made by Deloitte last year, which led to the firm having to retract reports in Australia (“Assuring Integrity in the Targeted Compliance Framework” report) and Canada (Healthcare Transformation Strategy), it is now EY’s turn to deal with an embarrassing case of AI hallucinations. The firm had to withdraw a report (“Points of Attack: Uncovering Cyber Threats and Fraud in Loyalty Systems”) after GPTZero conducted a detailed investigation that revealed the document was riddled with fabricated citations and inconsistent data.

Key Findings by GPTZero:

• 16 out of 27 references were hallucinated (broken or non-existent URLs)

• References to a non-existent McKinsey & Company – Loyalty Economics Report (2022)

• Made-up statistics and mis-attributed claims

• The report was estimated to be 72% AI-generated

“Publishing a report online is essentially a form of data injection into the pool of knowledge that is the internet. When the report includes fake information (either vibed citations or false claims) it can ‘poison the well’ by misleading future researchers, especially if the report is published by a well-known consulting firm...”

— GPTZero researchers: Om Ogale, Paul Esau, Alex Cui

The root of such problematic episodes lies in longstanding Big Four review habits. Partners routinely delegate research, drafting, and citation work to their subordinates, then perform only high-level reviews — assuming the team has done its homework on sources and data.

This model worked well enough in a purely human environment, but it is no longer fit for purpose in the age of generative AI, which can produce convincing but entirely fabricated references in seconds. Without updated vetting processes — such as mandatory citation audits, clear AI-use disclosures, and stronger partner accountability — these damaging episodes are likely to become a regular feature of Big Four thought leadership.

EY Australia Tightens Parental Leave Rules

It’s not just Deloitte that has blipped on the radar because of parental leave this week. EY Australia has introduced stricter eligibility and return-to-work requirements for its 26-week full-pay parental leave policy for either parent, which is significantly more generous than the statutory minimum, which is based on minimum wage.

Effective 1 July 2026, employees must now complete at least six months of service before becoming eligible, and those who take 12 weeks or more parental leave must repay eight weeks’ pay if they resign within 12 months of returning to work.

The six-month service requirement is understandable. Without any eligibility period, there is a legitimate risk of the policy attracting short-term applicants primarily seeking the benefit.

However, the one-year repayment obligation is draconian. New parents — particularly mothers — can encounter unexpected challenges after birth, including postnatal depression, health complications, or childcare crises, which sometimes lead to resignation. While it may make financial sense for the firm to recoup part of the benefits in such cases, the policy sends a punitive and unsupportive message, particularly to long-serving employees.

Hopefully the backlash will encourage EY to come up with a more balanced approach – for example linking any repayment to tenure, such as a sliding scale based on years of service, or carve-outs for genuine medical or family emergencies. The firm is still on time to fix this before the planned July 1 rollout.

KPMG Australia Admits Senior Partner Misused Confidential Files

KPMG Australia has admitted that a senior audit partner improperly accessed and used confidential board documents belonging to longtime client Lendlease. The documents were viewed and displayed while the firm was preparing a pitch to win the external audit for Westpac, one of Australia’s largest banking clients.

The admission, made on 14 May 2026, came after months of initial denials and followed allegations raised under parliamentary privilege by Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill in March 2026.

The documents were allegedly taken from Lendlease by the lead partners on the account — Eileen Hoggett (KPMG Australia’s Chief Operating Officer) and Paul Rogers. They were physically secured in Ms Hoggett’s locker before being circulated internally within KPMG and displayed to members of the Westpac pitch team.

KPMG has told Lendlease that the documents were of “low sensitivity” and provided “zero competitive advantage.” However, the incident has triggered serious concerns about auditor independence, client confidentiality, and the effectiveness of the firm’s internal controls — particularly given KPMG’s 65+ year audit relationship with Lendlease.

The consulting world is undergoing a profound transformation, and the latest move by McKinsey & Company offers a rare window into how the industry is preparing for it.

According to a Financial Times report, McKinsey is implementing an internal overhaul codenamed Project Acorn. The firm is shifting a larger portion of partners’ profit distributions from immediate cash payouts to equity. This change is designed to strengthen the firm’s capital reserves while adapting to more volatile, performance-linked revenue streams.

Why Is This Happening?

The consulting industry’s traditional economic model — high-margin, time-based billing — is under pressure from multiple directions:

Outcome-Based Pricing is Becoming the Norm. Clients, especially large enterprises, are no longer willing to pay premium rates simply for hours worked. They are pushing for “success fees” based on metrics such as savings or productivity improvements.

Artificial intelligence is also dramatically accelerating project timelines and reducing the need for large teams of junior consultants who once formed the backbone of billable hours. What used to take months of on-site analysis can now be supported (or in some cases replaced) by AI tools. This creates both opportunity and revenue uncertainty.

To stay ahead, firms must invest heavily in proprietary AI platforms, data capabilities and industry-specific solutions. Holding more capital internally gives leadership greater flexibility to make these bets without relying on external debt or diluting ownership.

The Big Four Angle — Especially for Deloitte

McKinsey may well be the canary in the coal mine.

While McKinsey operates as a pure-play strategy and management consultancy, the Big Four have broader service portfolios — but consulting is a large chunk of their annual revenue.

Deloitte stands out in particular. Roughly two-thirds of its global revenue now comes from consulting and advisory work. This makes the firm highly sensitive to changes in pricing models, AI disruption of traditional delivery, and the capital requirements needed to compete at the highest level.

The four firms are investing billions of dollars on talent, tools and intellectual property — investments that are harder to fund if cash flows become lumpier due to outcome-based contracts.

Shifting more partner compensation toward equity is an elegant solution: it builds a stronger internal capital base without raising outside money or cutting distributions too aggressively. It also better aligns partner incentives with the firm’s long-term health.

AI has already upended the traditional pyramid leverage model of the firms. Clearly, partner compensation is next.

14 May 2026 — In a significant development, KPMG Australia has admitted that a senior audit partner improperly accessed and displayed confidential Lendlease board documents while the firm was pitching to win the external audit engagement for Westpac.

The Admission

The firm confirmed today that Paul Rogers, a senior audit partner, accessed confidential Lendlease board materials and used them in the context of the Westpac tender. This comes after months of denials following explosive whistleblower allegations first raised in Parliament.

How the Scandal Unfolded

March 2026 — Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill, Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, used parliamentary privilege to publicly air allegations from a former senior KPMG executive.

Key claims included:

• Confidential Lendlease board papers were taken, secured (reportedly in the locker of then-Chief Operating Officer Eileen Hoggett), circulated internally, and allegedly used to strengthen KPMG’s pitch for major audit contracts, including Westpac and Dexus.

• KPMG had acted as Lendlease’s auditor for over 65 years.

• Additional concerns around a “concentration of former KPMG partners” in decision-making roles at Westpac, potentially compromising tender integrity.

KPMG initially responded by stating it had engaged two external law firms to investigate the claims and found no substantiation. The firm also noted the whistleblower had failed to provide sufficient additional evidence despite multiple requests.

April–May 2026 — The parliamentary committee held private hearings with the whistleblower and issued formal warnings to KPMG CEO Andrew Yates and Chairman Martin Sheppard. Pressure continued to mount.

Today (14 May 2026) — KPMG has now formally admitted the core breach involving the Lendlease documents.

Broader Context

This is the latest in a string of high-profile issues for KPMG Australia, following the 2021 exam-cheating scandal (which resulted in a A$615,000 fine) and more recent internal AI cheating cases.

It also continues the intense parliamentary and regulatory scrutiny of the Big Four firms in Australia, which began in earnest after the PwC tax leaks scandal.

What Happens Next?

• The Parliamentary Joint Committee is expected to continue its inquiry.

• Potential regulatory action from ASIC and/or professional accounting bodies.

• Reputational damage and possible client fallout.

• Ongoing questions about KPMG’s internal controls, whistleblower handling, and ethical culture.

Senator O’Neill described the admission as “vindication for the whistleblower.”

This is part of Big4News’ continuing coverage of the KPMG Australia Audit Leak Scandal.