IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v26y2014i2p164-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative

Author

Listed:
  • Demirkan, Sebahattin
  • Fuerman, Ross D.

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Demirkan, Sebahattin & Fuerman, Ross D., 2014. "Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 164-174.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:26:y:2014:i:2:p:164-174
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2014.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105204571400040X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2014.09.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, 2004. "Attorney Fees in Class Action Settlements: An Empirical Study," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 27-78, March.
    2. Amoah, Nana Y. & Tang, Alex P., 2013. "Resolution of restatement-induced lawsuits after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 41-46.
    3. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Livnat, Joshua, 2006. "Revenue surprises and stock returns," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1-2), pages 147-171, April.
    4. Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna & Richardson, Vernon J. & Scholz, Susan, 2004. "Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-89, February.
    5. Carcello, Jv & Palmrose, Zv, 1994. "Auditor Litigation And Modified Reporting On Bankrupt Clients," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 1-30.
    6. Ou, Jane A. & Penman, Stephen H., 1989. "Financial statement analysis and the prediction of stock returns," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 295-329, November.
    7. Lys, T & Watts, Rl, 1994. "Lawsuits Against Auditors," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 65-93.
    8. James M. Wahlen, 2004. "Discussion of “The Circumstances and Legal Consequences of Non†GAAP Reporting: Evidence from Restatements†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 181-190, March.
    9. Fuerman, Ross D., 2012. "Auditors and the post-2002 litigation environment," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 40-44.
    10. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2014. "Accounting misstatements following lawsuits against auditors," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 58-75.
    2. Zoe†Vonna Palmrose & Susan Scholz, 2004. "The Circumstances and Legal Consequences of Non†GAAP Reporting: Evidence from Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 139-180, March.
    3. Dayana Mastura Baharudin, 2019. "Pre and Post MCCG 2017: Board Audit Committee Effectiveness and Independence Issues," Business Management and Strategy, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 199-216, December.
    4. Geertsema, Paul & Lu, Helen, 2020. "The correlation structure of anomaly strategies," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    6. Josef Fink, 2020. "A Review of the Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift," Working Paper Series, Social and Economic Sciences 2020-04, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Karl-Franzens-University Graz.
    7. Karla M. Johnstone & Jean C. Bedard, 2004. "Audit Firm Portfolio Management Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 659-690, September.
    8. Richard Chung & Michael Firth & Jeong-Bon Kim, 2003. "Auditor conservatism and reported earnings," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 19-32.
    9. Daniel Aobdia & Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2021. "Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 715-754, February.
    10. Andrew Y. Chen & Tom Zimmermann, 2022. "Open Source Cross-Sectional Asset Pricing," Critical Finance Review, now publishers, vol. 11(2), pages 207-264, May.
    11. Lerong He & Rong Yang, 2014. "Does Industry Regulation Matter? New Evidence on Audit Committees and Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 123(4), pages 573-589, September.
    12. Doron Avramov & Guy Kaplanski & Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, 2022. "Postfundamentals Price Drift in Capital Markets: A Regression Regularization Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7658-7681, October.
    13. Elio Alfonso & Dana Hollie & Shaokun Carol Yu, 2019. "Cash Flow Restatements: Stock Market Reaction to Overstated versus Understated Restatements," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(3), pages 1-1, August.
    14. Peng-Chia Chiu & Timothy D. Haight, 2020. "Investor learning, earnings signals, and stock returns," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 671-698, February.
    15. Dijk, M. van, 1998. "Litigation and audit quality; two experimental studies," Research Report 98C42, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Kryzanowski, Lawrence & Zhang, Ying, 2013. "Financial restatements by Canadian firms cross-listed and not cross-listed in the U.S," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 74-96.
    17. Ganapathi S Narayanamoorthy & Hui Zhou, 2016. "Litigation settlements, litigation stakes, and financial distress costs," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 41(3), pages 459-483, August.
    18. Jiang, Wei & Rupley, Kathleen Hertz & Wu, Jia, 2010. "Internal control deficiencies and the issuance of going concern opinions," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 40-46.
    19. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles, Josep Ma, 2015. "Audit firm tenure and independence: A comprehensive investigation of audit qualifications in Spain," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-93.
    20. Habib, Ahsan & Jiang, Haiyan & Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin & Islam, Ainul, 2014. "Litigation risk, financial reporting and auditing: A survey of the literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 145-163.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:26:y:2014:i:2:p:164-174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.