Using 629 observations of U.S. publicly listed firms with internal control related frauds from 2000 to 2006; this study investigates the change in auditor litigations in the Post- Sarbanes Oxley, Section 404 period. To the extent the conditions of the internal control in place are inadequate or non-existent, the possibility of the occurrence of internal control related fraud heightens. Thus, the inability of auditors to detect a financial statement misstatement due to internal control fraud in a timely manner exposes auditors to litigation (Barra, 2010; Heninger, 2001; Caplan, 1999). This situation was prevalent in the recent notable corporate failures that resulted in auditors being named as potential defendants. The present research finding indicates during the Post-SOX 404 period, the probability of auditor litigation due to internal control fraud increases. However, no support was shown for further increases in the likelihood of auditor litigation when both types of fraud occur in the Post-SOX 404 period. These results suggest an increase in the enforcement of accountability by the SEC, and should motivate auditors towards reassessing their audit procedures. Furthermore, the results indicate the probability of auditor litigation due to internal control fraud decreases for accelerated filers, and similarly, the probability of auditor litigation decreases for firms with management voluntary disclosures reflecting effective internal control. The overall result of this study indicates the likelihood of auditors being litigated increased in the Post-SOX 404 period, and auditors are more likely to be litigated when both types of fraud occurs simultaneously. This result further supports the argument for meritorious claims and the procedural justice theory.

This paper examines the occurrence and outcome of auditor litigation related to financial statement misstatements and the effect of auditor misstatement-based litigation on subsequent auditor behavior. The study is motivated by recent calls to limit auditor legal liability and the need to examine the ability of litigation to deter non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) financial reporting. I find that misstatement severity is the primary driver of auditor litigation. Specifically, I find that auditor misstatement-based litigation is more likely when the misstatement is associated with fraud, a regulatory investigation, a larger stock price decline, and/or a greater number of accounting application [i.e., Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)/GAAP) failures. In addition, I find that auditor misstatement-based litigation is more likely to occur when the misstatement is associated with engagement fees that consist of a greater magnitude or a greater proportion of non-audit service fees. Further, I find that misstatement severity and the size of the plaintiffs? claims are the primary drivers of auditor settlements resulting from misstatement-based litigation. Specifically, I find that an auditor settlement resulting from misstatement-based litigation is more likely to occur when the misstatement is associated with fraud, a greater amount of alleged income or equity inflation over the class action time period, and/or a larger alleged percentage drop in share price over the class action time period. With respect to subsequent auditor behavior, I find evidence that auditor litigation results in more conservative subsequent auditor behavior across a litigated auditor?s office-wide client portfolio (that excludes the litigated client). Specifically, in the year following auditor litigation, I find evidence that litigation results in increased auditor constraint of client-reported positive and signed discretionary accruals, as well as longer audit report lags.

This paper examines the occurrence and outcome of auditor litigation related to financial statement misstatements and the effect of auditor misstatement-based litigation on subsequent auditor behavior. The study is motivated by recent calls to limit auditor legal liability and the need to examine the ability of litigation to deter non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) financial reporting. I find that misstatement severity is the primary driver of auditor litigation. Specifically, I find that auditor misstatement-based litigation is more likely when the misstatement is associated with fraud, a regulatory investigation, a larger stock price decline, and/or a greater number of accounting application [i.e., Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)/GAAP) failures. In addition, I find that auditor misstatement-based litigation is more likely to occur when the misstatement is associated with engagement fees that consist of a greater magnitude or a greater proportion of non-audit service fees. Further, I find that misstatement severity and the size of the plaintiffs? claims are the primary drivers of auditor settlements resulting from misstatement-based litigation. Specifically, I find that an auditor settlement resulting from misstatement-based litigation is more likely to occur when the misstatement is associated with fraud, a greater amount of alleged income or equity inflation over the class action time period, and/or a larger alleged percentage drop in share price over the class action time period. With respect to subsequent auditor behavior, I find evidence that auditor litigation results in more conservative subsequent auditor behavior across a litigated auditor?s office-wide client portfolio (that excludes the litigated client). Specifically, in the year following auditor litigation, I find evidence that litigation results in increased auditor constraint of client-reported positive and signed discretionary accruals, as well as longer audit report lags.