Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative

Sebahattin Demirkan , Ross D. Fuerman
{"title":"Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative","authors":"Sebahattin Demirkan ,&nbsp;Ross D. Fuerman","doi":"10.1016/j.racreg.2014.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study extends the Palmrose and Scholz (2004) general litigation and general restatements study by focusing on <em>auditor</em> litigation and <em>revenue</em> restatements. We investigate all potential accounting issues, individually, instead of by their group method, with regard to auditor litigation. The impact of the individual accounting issues implicated in restatements is of concern to auditors and audit standard setters in gauging auditor litigation risk and audit risk. It also is important for financial analysis and securities valuation because investors' losses are greater, and recovery of losses on a percentage basis is lower, when the auditor is a defendant, and especially when the auditor has a more severe, negative litigation experience (Commolli et al., 2012). We examine financial reporting lawsuits filed from 2001 to 2008 and find that revenue restatements—far more than any other kind of restatements—are associated with auditors being named defendants and also auditors experiencing a more severe, negative outcome in the litigation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101074,"journal":{"name":"Research in Accounting Regulation","volume":"26 2","pages":"Pages 164-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.racreg.2014.09.006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Accounting Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105204571400040X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study extends the Palmrose and Scholz (2004) general litigation and general restatements study by focusing on auditor litigation and revenue restatements. We investigate all potential accounting issues, individually, instead of by their group method, with regard to auditor litigation. The impact of the individual accounting issues implicated in restatements is of concern to auditors and audit standard setters in gauging auditor litigation risk and audit risk. It also is important for financial analysis and securities valuation because investors' losses are greater, and recovery of losses on a percentage basis is lower, when the auditor is a defendant, and especially when the auditor has a more severe, negative litigation experience (Commolli et al., 2012). We examine financial reporting lawsuits filed from 2001 to 2008 and find that revenue restatements—far more than any other kind of restatements—are associated with auditors being named defendants and also auditors experiencing a more severe, negative outcome in the litigation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审计师诉讼:收入重述具有决定性的证据
本研究扩展了Palmrose和Scholz(2004)的一般诉讼和一般重述研究,重点关注审计师诉讼和收入重述。我们调查所有潜在的会计问题,单独,而不是通过他们的小组方法,关于审计师诉讼。重述中涉及的个别会计问题的影响是审计师和审计准则制定者在衡量审计诉讼风险和审计风险时所关注的问题。这对财务分析和证券估值也很重要,因为当审计师是被告时,尤其是当审计师有更严重的负面诉讼经历时,投资者的损失更大,按百分比计算的损失回收率更低(Commolli et al., 2012)。我们研究了从2001年到2008年的财务报告诉讼,发现收入重述——比任何其他类型的重述都要多——与审计师被指定为被告以及审计师在诉讼中经历更严重、更负面的结果有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Value relevance of customer-related intangible assets Transparency and the audit industry? Not in the U.S. Evidence on audit production costs, profitability and partner compensation from the U.K. Financial statement comparability and segment disclosure The mitigation of high-growth-related accounting distortions after sarbanes-oxley
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1