Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports and audit firm size

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 332-353

  Geiger, Marshall A ^a   Raghunandan, K ^b   Rama, Dasaratha V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit firm size; Audit reports; Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646805753     PISSN: 02784254     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2006.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1988. The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. Statement on Auditing Standards no. 59. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1992. Statement by the Board of Directors of the AICPA. In Journal of Accountancy 182 (5), 18.
3. Berton L. Big accounting firms weed out risky clients. The Wall Street Journal (1995) B1
4. Boyle E.J., and Knopf F.N. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. CPA Journal 66 4 (1996) 44-47
5. Breeden, R., 2002. Oversight hearing on accounting and investor protection issues raised by Enron and other public companies. US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.
6. Bryan-Low C. Auditors fail to foresee bankruptcies: In study, many companies were cleared within a year before chapter 11 filings. The Wall Street Journal (2002) C9
7. Carcello J., and Neal T.L. Audit committee characteristics and auditor dismissals following "new" going-concern reports. The Accounting Review 78 1 (2003) 95-117
8. Carcello J., and Palmrose Z. Auditor litigation and modified reporting on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research 32 Supplement (1994) 1-30
9. Carcello J., Hermanson D., and Huss F. The effect of SAS No. 59: How treatment of the transition period influences results. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 16 1 (1997) 114-123
10. Chan D., and Pae S. An analysis of the economic consequences of the proportionate liability rule. Contemporary Accounting Research 15 2 (1998) 457-480
11. Chen K.C.W., and Church B.K. Default on debt obligations and the issuance of going-concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 11 2 (1992) 30-49
12. Chenok P. Worth repeating. Journal of Accountancy 184 6 (1994) 47-50
13. Cloyd C.B., Frederickson J.R., and Hill J.W. Independent auditor litigation: Recent events and related research. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 17 (1998) 121-142
14. Coffee J.C. Guarding the gatekeepers. The New York Times (2002) B3
15. Cook J.M., Freedman E.M., Groves R.J., Madonna J.C., O'Malley S.F., and Weinbach L.A. The liability crisis in the United States: Impact on the accounting profession. Journal of Accountancy 182 5 (1992) 19-23
16. Dye R. Auditing standards, legal liability, and auditor wealth. Journal of Political Economy 101 (1993) 887-908
17. Francis J.R., and Krishnan J. Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research 16 1 (1999) 135-165
18. Francis J.R., and Simon D.T. A test of audit pricing in the small client segment of the US audit market. The Accounting Review 72 1 (1987) 145-157
19. Geiger M.A., and Raghunandan K. Bankruptcies, audit reports, and the reform act. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 20 1 (2001) 187-195
20. Geiger M.A., Raghunandan K., and Rama D.V. Costs associated with going-concern modified audit opinions: An analysis of auditor changes, subsequent opinions, and client failures. Advances in Accounting 16 (1998) 117-139
21. Gist W.E. A test of audit pricing in the small-client segment: A comment. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 10 2 (1995) 223-233
22. Gottlieb, E., Doroshow, J., 2002. Not in my back yard II: The high-tech hypocrites of "tort reform." Center for Justice and Democracy, White paper (April).
23. Gramling A.A., Schatzberg J.W., Bailey Jr. A.D., and Zhang H. The impact of legal liability regimes and differential client risk on client acceptance, audit pricing, and audit effort decisions. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 13 2 (1998) 437-460
24. Hopwood W., McKeown J., and Mutchler J. A test of the incremental explanatory power of opinions qualified for consistency and uncertainty. The Accounting Review 64 1 (1989) 28-48
25. Hopwood W., McKeown J., and Mutchler J. A reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 1 (1994) 409-431
26. Johnson R., Stokes D., and Watts D. Auditor preferences for liability limitation. Accounting and Finance 35 1 (1995) 135-154
27. Kahn L., and Metcalfe L. Securities law: Accountants no longer at risk of being sued for aiding and abetting securities law violations, have recently been found directly liable for their client's fraud. The National Law Journal 20 (1996) B6
28. Kasznik R., and Lev B. To warn or not to warn: Management disclosures in the face of an earnings surprise. The Accounting Review 69 1 (1995) 113-134
29. King R.R., and Schwartz R. The Private Securities Reform Act of 1995: A discussion of three provisions. Accounting Horizons 11 1 (1997) 92-106
30. Latham C., and Linville M. A review of the literature on audit litigation. Journal of Accounting Literature 17 (1998) 175-213
31. Lee H.Y., and Mande V. The effect of the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995 on accounting discretion of client managers of Big 6 and non-Big 6 auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 22 1 (2003) 93-108
32. McKeown J.C., Mutchler J.F., and Hopwood W. Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinion of bankrupt companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10 Supplement (1991) 1-13
33. McKeown J.C., Mutchler J.F., and Hopwood W. Reply. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10 Supplement (1991) 21-24
34. Mednick R., and Peck J.J. Proportionality: A much-needed solution to the accountants' legal liability crisis. Valparaiso University Law Review 23 (1994) 867-918
35. Menon K., and Williams D. The insurance hypothesis and market prices. The Accounting Review 69 2 (1994) 327-342
36. Mutchler J.F., Hopwood W., and McKeown J.C. The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research 36 2 (1997) 295-310
37. Nelson S. Push is on for audit reform, before sting of Andersen verdict fades. The Boston Globe (2002) B1
38. Neter J., Wasserman W., and Kunter M.H. Applied Linear Statistical Models. second ed. (1985), Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL
39. Pratt J., and Stice J.D. The effects of client characteristics on auditor litigation risk judgments, required audit evidence, and recommended audit fees. The Accounting Review 69 4 (1994) 639-656
40. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 1995. Government Printing Office (GPO), Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Public Law No. 104-67. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
41. Public Oversight Board (POB), 1993. Annual report 1992-1993. Public Oversight Board, Stamford, CT.
42. Public Oversight Board (POB), 1994. Annual report 1993-1994. Public Oversight Board, Stamford, CT.
43. Raghunandan K., and Rama D.V. Audit opinions for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 14 1 (1995) 50-63
44. Raghunandan K., and Rama D.V. Auditor resignations and the market for audit services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18 1 (1999) 124-134
45. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2000. Revision of the commission's auditor independence requirements. Release Nos. 33-7919; 34-43602. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC.
46. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2002. Strengthening the Commission's Requirements Regarding Auditor Independence, Securities and Exchange Commission, Release No. 33-8154 SEC: Washington, DC.
47. Shu S. Auditor resignations: Clientele effects and legal liability. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33 (2000) 173-205
48. Stice J.D. Using financial and market information to identify pre-engagement factors associated with lawsuits against auditors. The Accounting Review 66 3 (1991) 516-533
49. Stone M., and Rasp J. Tradeoffs in the choice between Logit and OLS for accounting choice studies. The Accounting Review 66 1 (1991) 170-187
50. Tie R. The profession's roots. Journal of Accountancy 193 5 (2003) 57-59
51. US Senate., 2002. Hearings before the subcommittee on telecommunications and finance of the committee on energy and commerce.
52. Weil J. Going concerns: Did accountants fail to flag problems at dot-com casualties?. The Wall Street Journal (2001) C1
53. Williams P. Association for integrity in accounting enters the discussion of accounting reforms. The CPA Journal 73 4 (2003) 14-15
54. Zmijewski M.E. Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. Journal of Accounting Research 22 Supplement (1984) 59-82