Litigation Risk and Audit Firm Characteristics

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Casterella ◽  
Kevan L. Jensen ◽  
W. Robert Knechel
Keyword(s):  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Audit Firm

Litigation Risk and Audit Firm Characteristics

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Casterella ◽  
Kevan L. Jensen ◽  
W. Robert Knechel
Keyword(s):  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Continuous Measure ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Growth Firms ◽  
History Of ◽  
Using Data

SUMMARY: This study examines the association between certain audit firm characteristics and audit firm litigation risk. Previous research shows a link between audit client characteristics and audit firm litigation risk. However, insurance companies do not make extensive use of financial information about individual audit clients to make risk assessments. Instead, they primarily use information about the audit firms themselves. Using data from a large insurance company, we examine the link between several audit firm characteristics and audit-related litigation. Based on a dichotomous measure of risk (existence of a lawsuit), we find that larger firms, firms experiencing rapid growth, firms that sue their clients, and firms with a history of problems all face greater litigation risk. Introducing a continuous measure of the cost of litigation we find, in addition to the previously mentioned risk factors, that firms with a prior history of regulatory problems and firms that choose smaller deductibles are more risky to the insurance company. However, our proxies for independence and expertise are not associated with litigation risk.

Audit Firm Characteristics and Litigation Risk in Nigeria

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 57-72
Author(s):  
Onatuyeh Aruobogha Edwin ◽  
Nwabuko Oluchi Bavy
Keyword(s):  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Audit Firm

An Empirical Investigation of IPO Underpricing and the Change to the LLP Organization of Audit Firms

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Muzatko ◽  
Karla M. Johnstone ◽  
Brian W. Mayhew ◽  
Larry E. Rittenberg
Keyword(s):  
Initial Public Offering ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Ipo Underpricing ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Offering

This paper examines the relationship between the 1994 change in audit firm legal structure from general partnerships to limited liability partnerships (LLPs) on underpricing in the initial public offering (IPO) market. The change in legal structure of audit firms reduces an audit firm's wealth at risk from litigation damages and reduces the incentives for intrafirm monitoring by partners within an audit firm. Prior research suggests that underpricing protects underwriters from litigation damages, and that the level of underpricing varies inversely with both the amount of implicit insurance provided by the audit firm and the quality of the audit services provided. We hypothesize the change in audit firm legal structure reduced the assets available from audit firms in IPO-related litigation and indirectly reduced audit quality by lowering intrafirm monitoring. As a result, underwriters have incentives as a joint and several defendant with the audit firms to increase IPO underpricing, particularly for high-litigation-risk IPOs, following audit firms' shifts to LLP status. Our findings are consistent with this hypothesis.

Audit firm characteristics and Type II errors in the going concern opinion

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Dunn ◽  
Christine E. L. Tan ◽  
Elizabeth K. Venuti
Keyword(s):  
Type Ii ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Going Concern Opinion ◽  
Type Ii Errors

scholarly journals Affiliation of local audit firms with Big4 auditors and capital structure: evidence from Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 731-757
Author(s):  
Heny Kurniawati ◽  
Philippe Van Cauwenberge ◽  
Heidi Vander Bauwhede
Keyword(s):  
Capital Structure ◽  
Information Asymmetry ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Second Tier

Purpose This paper aims to investigate whether the choice for a Big4-affiliated local audit firm affects the capital structure of listed companies in Indonesia, a fast-growing emerging country that is characterized by high information asymmetry and low litigation risk. A unique characteristic of the Indonesian audit environment is that Big4 auditors can only enter the market indirectly through affiliation with a local audit firm. Design/methodology/approach A sample of Indonesian listed companies between 2008 and 2015 is used to investigate this relation using ordinary least squares (OLS). To address the concern that the choice for Big4-affiliated auditors might reflect client characteristics, the authors also perform OLS on a matched sample, using both propensity-score and entropy-balance matching. Findings Across all three samples, the authors document that companies audited by a Big4-affiliated local audit firm display lower debt ratios. The authors find no such effect for affiliation with second-tier audit firms. Surprisingly, they find that the negative effect of Big4 affiliation is increasing in client size. Research limitations/implications This study provides evidence of the consequences of hiring Big4 auditors on the perceived information asymmetry by financial markets under extreme conditions: in an environment characterized by low litigation risk and where Big4 auditors can operate only indirectly through affiliation. Practical implications The results of this study are of interest to policymakers, managers and financial stakeholders in emerging countries where external financing is important yet difficult to obtain because of severe information asymmetry. Hiring a Big4 auditor, even only through affiliation, might reduce perceived information asymmetry and increase the access to external equity financing. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide evidence of the effect of Big4 auditors on their clients’ capital structure when they can operate only indirectly through affiliation with a local auditor.

The association between PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies and small audit firms’ characteristics

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 717-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Kang ◽  
Magdy Farag ◽  
Robert Hurt ◽  
Cheryl Wyrick
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Organization Structure ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Negatively Associated ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the association between certain audit firm characteristics and the number of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)-identified audit deficiencies. Design/methodology/approach – Using a hand-collected sample of PCAOB inspection reports for small audit firms with 100 or less issuer clients from 2007 through 2010, an ordinary least squares model is applied by regressing the number of deficiencies on a set of audit firm characteristics. Findings – Results show that the number of PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies is positively associated with the number of issuer clients and negatively associated with the number of branch offices, the human capital leverage and the organization structure as Limited Liability Partnership firms. Additional analysis also shows that the PCAOB inspection length is positively associated with the number of deficiencies, the number of branch offices and the number of issuer clients, but negatively associated with the organization structure as limited liability company firms. Moreover, the PCAOB inspection lag is positively associated with the number of deficiencies and the number of issuer clients. Research limitations/implications – Results of this study cannot be generalized beyond public accounting firms with 100 or fewer issuer clients. In addition, there is a possibility that other measurements of firm-level characteristics that impact the number of PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies were not captured in the study. Practical implications – This study explains the association between audit firm characteristics and PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies. Our results caution small audit firms about not having enough professional staff, low human capital leverage and serving too many issuer clients, as those factors may potentially impair audit quality. Originality/value – This study helps to explain the relationship between audit deficiencies and controllable, measurable firm-level characteristics. It is, therefore, differentiated from previous studies, most of which were focused on PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies as measures of audit quality and stakeholder reactions to PCAOB reports.

scholarly journals Auditors’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities: The impact of exposure to litigation risk

Accounting ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1435-1444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abdullah Saad Al-Dhubaibi
Keyword(s):  
Financial Statements ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Certified Public Accountants ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Accountants ◽  
The Impact

The purpose of this study is to investigate the perception of auditors regarding their responsibilities and potential liabilities to third parties in the case of failure to detect fraud/material misstatements and report the findings to the appropriate party. The study proposes that auditors’ perception of their own responsibilities will depend on the level of litigation threat expected by the auditor based on his or her position in the audit firm. The questionnaire was sent to the big 4 audit firms, the global audit firms other than the big 4, and to 189 different sized local audit firms registered with the Saudi Organization of Certified Public Accountants (SOCPA). The findings of this study revealed significant variations among auditors with regards to their perceptions of their own responsibilities and liabilities to financial statements’ users affected by their expected level of exposure to litigation risk.

scholarly journals Determinants Of Enforcement Action By The Financial Supervisory Service Of Korea From The Perspective Of Audit Firms

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-Jung Kang ◽  
Ho-Young Lee ◽  
Yong-Sang Woo
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Client Characteristics ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Specific Factors

<p>In this study, we examine the determinants of enforcement action by the Financial Supervisory Service of Korea from the perspective of audit firms. Enforcement action is an indication of audit failure. Both client- and audit firm-specific factors are involved in its occurrence. Most published studies of enforcement after audit failure focus on client characteristics because details about audit firms from financial statements and information about organizational structure are not publicly available. However, examining the issues surrounding enforcement from the perspective of audit firms may also be valuable in elucidating the potential determinants of audit failure resulting in enforcement action. Utilizing publicly available data from audit firms in South Korea, we identify several audit firm characteristics as determinants of enforcement action. The results of our empirical analysis reveal that the likelihood of audit failure is positively associated with the ratio of accounts receivable to total assets, the ratio of audit fees to total revenue, the ratio of partners to the total number of CPAs, CEO ownership, and age of audit firms. In addition, the likelihood of audit failure is negatively associated with ownership concentration and profitability. These associations are more pronounced in non-affiliated audit firms than affiliated audit firms. Several useful implications for regulators are described for improving audit quality by means of enforcement action.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document