This thesis first builds a framework to impose professional liability on Chinese auditors for misstatements and then tests the framework by field work. Auditor liability has been a recurring puzzle. This thesis intends to analyze the complex legal relationships among the players in typical auditing litigations, dissect the arguments from both the auditors and plaintiffs, and develop doctrines and check points that could help the litigation parties to evaluate the merits of their claims, to predict the litigation outcomes, and to mitigate litigation risks in the Chinese setting. The author adopts a utilitarianism perspective and utilizes the theory of “contract and status”. The main methodologies employed include: case report analysis, legal reasoning, interviews, and questionnaire survey. Comparison across jurisdictions and interdisciplinary perspectives have been utilized all through the thesis. In the first part, the author draws a portrait of the Chinese auditing profession, and then moves to synthesize the previous literature on audit liability from both accounting and legal perspectives. After this, a significant part of the thesis is devoted to analyzing the typical UK reported cases since the late 19th century including the Caparo case, Bannerman case and others to discover the UK laws regulating auditor liability. In the following chapter, the recent trends of legislation in the UK and the company law harmonization practice of the EU are reviewed. Then, based on a survey on current Chinese law and an analysis on the feasibility of transplanting the UK and EU practice into China, the author develops a proposed framework integrating doctrines and practical checking points about eligible plaintiffs, duty of care, wrongdoings, standards of care, and damage calculation and allocation in typical litigations. In the second part, the proposed framework is dissected into questions, which are examined through 38 interviews with auditors, regulators, financial statements preparers, and lawyers, and 470 survey questionnaires completed by auditors and members of the financial community, along with questions about responsibility and the technical abilities of auditors. The data from the field produces a cross-section picture of the perceptions of stakeholders on auditor liability. Statistical analysis shows there are significant differences between the auditor and non-auditor on the majority of the related issues, such as auditor’s responsibility, eligible plaintiff, and others. The empirical analysis gives general support for the proposed framework.

No description available.

This dissertation examines the litigation and legal liability exposure of auditors related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Three separate studies were conducted to examine how auditor's litigation exposure is evaluated by potential litigants (lawyers), and how auditor liability is evaluated by jurors, following the bankruptcy of a client. The first study examines whether the auditor's SOX Section 404 reporting decisions influence lawyers' assessments of their litigation exposure. The second study investigates whether voluntary disclosures of significant deficiencies in internal controls within the SOX Section 404 report, and the subjectivity of the internal control judgments made by the auditor, influence jurors' perceptions of auditor liability for negligence. The third study examines how the requirements of SOX Section 302 related to audit committee independence and audit committee expertise influence jurors' perceptions of auditor independence and auditor liability for negligence. Overall, these three studies provide insights on how different provisions of SOX, specifically the Section 404 report and audit committee requirements, influence the likelihood that auditors will be sued and the likelihood that they will be held liable by a jury.

Revisionsberättelsen är ett viktigt verktygför kommunikationen mellan revisorerna och in­tressenterna. Dagensrevisionsberättelse är väldigt standardiserad och i samtliga delar finns detförslag till exakta formuleringar. Enligt tidigare forskning finns det enintressekonflikt mellan intressenterna och revisorerna. Denna konflikt handlarom att intressenterna vill ut­vidga informationsinnehållet irevisionsberättelsen vilket revisorerna är kritiska till eftersom detta skulleinnebära mer ansvar och mer att stå till svars för. För att lösa denna konflikthar revisionsberättelsen debatterats flitigt och i en debatt diskuteras om mankan göra revisions­berättelsen intressantare genom att betygsätta företag iexempelvis intern kontroll och bolagsstyrning. Debatterna kringrevisionsberättelsen har också utmynnat i en ny revisionsberättelse som skallbörja användas från och med 1 januari 2011. Vårt syfte med denna studie är därför att utifrån revisorernas perspektivanalysera och beskriva revisorernas uppfattning om revis­ionsberättelsen ochdess formalisering samt om där finns en vilja bland revisorerna att utöka sittansvar genom fler uttalanden i revisionsberättelsen. Studien baseras på enempirisk under­sökning i form av sex kvalitativa intervjuer. En av dessaintervjuer är med studenter som är i slutet av sin högskoleutbildning inomrevision. Anledningen till att vi valt studenter som en av våra respondenter äratt vill analysera om deras uppfattningar skiljer sig från de övriga. Vårundersökning visar att revisorerna har synpunkter på hur innehållet ochstrukturen i revisions­berättelsen skall förbättras men samtliga anser attrevisionsberättelsen tillgodoser intressen­ternas behov. Formaliseringen avrevisionsberättelsen uppskattas av samtliga revisorer och de tycker att tydligariktlinjer är viktigt. Alla respondenter är dessutom villiga att ta mer ansvargenom fler uttalanden i revisionsberättelsen. Slutsatsen angående studenternaär att de har samma uppfattning som majoriteten av respondenterna. / The audit report is an important tool for the communication between auditors and stakehold­ers.  Today's audit report is very standardized andin all part there are exact proposals for the formulation.  According to previous research, there is aconflict of interest between stakehold­ers and auditors. The conflict is aboutthe stakeholders want more information in the audit report which the auditorsare critical towards, since it would mean more responsibility. To resolve theconflict the audit report has been debated a lot. One discussion is about howto make the audit report more interesting for the stakeholders. There is aproposal about rating the company on example internal control and corporategovernance. All the debates have also led to a “new audit report” and this auditreport shall be used from January 1st 2011Our purpose of this studyis therefore to analyze and describe the auditors’ opinion about the con­tentand structure of the audit report. We also want to investigate the auditors opinionabout the formalization of the audit report and if they are willing to increasetheir responsibility. The study is based on six qualitative interviews. One ofthese interviews is with students and the reason for this is to compare iftheir perception differ from the others. Our conclusions are that the auditorshave opinions how to improve the content and the structure of the audit report.All the auditors think that the audit report meet the stake­holders needs. Theformali­zation of the audit report is estimate by the auditors and all intervieweesagreed that the guidelines are important. The study also indicates that theauditors are willing to take more responsibility by more statements in theaudit report. The conclusion regarding the stu­dents is that they have the same opinion as the majority of the auditors interviewed.