Deloitte in focus over Autonomy claims Autonomy built its reputation with software that could analyse colossal volumes of information such as emails and web pages. For Deloitte, its former auditor, much may now hinge on how thoroughly its staff sifted through thousands of invoices submitted by its client. Accused of accounting improprieties by Hewlett-Packard , which bought Autonomy for $11bn in 2011, the British company's former leaders are using Deloitte's work as a key defence against the claims. Deloitte saw all invoices above the value of $100,000 and had a key role in vetting how these sales were presented in the accounts, according to a person close to the former management team. The auditors got to see "everything - all of the areas that are being discussed," the person said. For instance, the contentious issue of when to recognise sales from "hosted deals" - a type of contract that has both an element of upfront and deferred sales - was checked by Deloitte, the person added. The UK arm of Deloitte, which started auditing Autonomy in 2003, on Wednesday declined to comment on the specifics of its work, which was done out of its Cambridge office. It said: "Deloitte categorically denies that it had any knowledge of any accounting improprieties or misrepresentations in Autonomy's financial statements. We conducted our audit work in full compliance with regulation and professional standards. We are unable to discuss our audit work further due to client confidentiality. We will co-operate with the relevant authorities with any investigations into these allegations. Meg Whitman, HP chief executive, said the US company's board had put faith in the reputation of Deloitte, the world's second-biggest auditor by sales. "The board relied on audited financials, audited by Deloitte, not Brand X accounting firm but Deloitte," she said, adding that KPMG had also vetted Deloitte's work. KPMG declined to comment. HP has called for civil and criminal investigations but Ms Whitman would not say whether it was considering any legal action against Deloitte or KPMG. The Financial Reporting Council, the UK regulator that handles allegations of serious auditor misconduct, on Wednesday said it needed to gather relevant information before commenting. Steven Thomas, a lawyer who has brought lawsuits against accounting firms, said: "If Deloitte didn't do their job and didn't find [any problems] because they did a bad audit, they can and should be held ­liable." Deloitte has been involved in several controversies. It is defending a disciplinary action brought by the FRC over work it and one of its former corporate financiers did in the run-up to the collapse of carmaker MG Rover in 2005. Its US arm came under fire this year from New York state's Department of Financial Services, which claimed it helped Standard Chartered, the UK bank, conceal illicit dealings with Iranian financial institutions while acting as an independent consultant. The claim, which has not led to enforcement action, is denied by Deloitte, which said it "properly performed its role as independent consultant in full compliance with the highest professional standards." Deloitte's US arm was also the subject of a highly critical report by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the US audit regulator, in 2011. HP's accusations are likely to strengthen calls for auditors to be obliged to say more about how they vet figures submitted to them by management. In the UK and most major economies auditors are only obliged to make brief, generic statements of how they decide accounts are fairly presented. Frustrated investors are backing a global attempt to introduce an "auditor commentary" that would give specific detail about the thorniest issues addressed in the audit. A blueprint has been drawn up by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, a technical body that influences the way audits are done around the world. Given its accounting had been questioned by some analysts long before the HP takeover, an auditor's commentary could have been particularly useful in the case of Autonomy. "It certainly brings into sharper focus the lack of any commentary by auditors thus far," said one senior figure at an investment manager. "Without that commentary, investors - and also HP and its investors - didn't have the hooks with which they could engage effectively with the management of Autonomy," he added. Additional reporting, David Gelles in New York