To Sue or Not to Sue: An Experimental Study of Factors Affecting Hong Kong Liquidators Audit Litigation Decisions
We report an experiment examining the effect of three factors on professional Hong Kong liquidators' decisions to bring legal action in negligence against auditors. Factors were (a) the strength (merit) of the supporting evidence (arguable vs. overwhelming), (b) the type of alleged audit failur...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2003
|
| In: |
Journal of business ethics
Year: 2003, Volume: 46, Issue: 4, Pages: 363-374 |
| Further subjects: | B
British common law
B audit litigation B audit firm size B case merit B financial statement errors B management fraud |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | We report an experiment examining the effect of three factors on professional Hong Kong liquidators' decisions to bring legal action in negligence against auditors. Factors were (a) the strength (merit) of the supporting evidence (arguable vs. overwhelming), (b) the type of alleged audit failure (failure to report financial statement errors vs. management fraud) and (c) audit firm type (Big 6 vs. non-Big 6). We find evidence that liquidators' litigation decisions are influenced by case merit. We also find that liquidators were marginally more likely to institute legal action against a Big 6 than against a non-Big 6 auditor. However, we find no evidence that the type of alleged audit failure influences litigation decisions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1023/A:1025624329105 |