UC知道大家好 求翻译 审计相关英翻中 请勿机翻3
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/07/03 02:47:22
Most recently, Khurana and Raman (2004) report that the presence of a large audit firm is
inverse with the ex ante cost of equity capital in the U. S. (a high shareholder litigation country), but not Australia, Canada or the U. K. (relatively lower shareholder litigation countries). From
this finding, they conclude “… litigation concerns, rather than reputation protection, drive the
perceived higher quality and financial reporting credibility of Big 4 audits” (p. 475).
2.3 THE GERMAN SETTING AND THE COMROAD AG / KPMG EVENT
2.3.1. The German Setting. Several characteristics of Germany are important to our
study. To begin, it is relatively difficult for clients and investors to sue auditors for damages
associated with the misstatement of financial statements. Clients may bring suit for breach of
contract, but German law imposes a rather high bar, requiring they demonstrate the auditor acted
either intentionally or with reckless disreg
inverse with the ex ante cost of equity capital in the U. S. (a high shareholder litigation country), but not Australia, Canada or the U. K. (relatively lower shareholder litigation countries). From
this finding, they conclude “… litigation concerns, rather than reputation protection, drive the
perceived higher quality and financial reporting credibility of Big 4 audits” (p. 475).
2.3 THE GERMAN SETTING AND THE COMROAD AG / KPMG EVENT
2.3.1. The German Setting. Several characteristics of Germany are important to our
study. To begin, it is relatively difficult for clients and investors to sue auditors for damages
associated with the misstatement of financial statements. Clients may bring suit for breach of
contract, but German law imposes a rather high bar, requiring they demonstrate the auditor acted
either intentionally or with reckless disreg
demonstrate the auditor acted
either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. Investors may bring action under the
rules of civil liability, but German law requires they show that they had an implied contract or
that the contract had ‘protective effects