Richard A. Cazier, Theodore E. Christensen, Kenneth J. Merkley, John S. Treu
{"title":"The joint effects of litigation risk and regulation on non-GAAP reporting","authors":"Richard A. Cazier, Theodore E. Christensen, Kenneth J. Merkley, John S. Treu","doi":"10.1111/jbfa.12766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We examine the joint effects of litigation risk and regulation in shaping firms’ financial reporting decisions. Specifically, we investigate how these disciplining mechanisms influence firms’ disclosure of non-GAAP earnings metrics, which have been at the forefront of the SEC's regulatory concerns in recent years. We employ a plausibly exogenous shock to litigation risk based on a US circuit court ruling to explore how litigation risk influences firms’ non-GAAP earnings disclosures. We find a robust <i>negative</i> relation between litigation risk and both the likelihood and aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting. However, we find a significant attenuation in the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk after the implementation of Regulation G (Reg G), despite evidence that aggressive non-GAAP reporting persists in the post-Reg G environment. Additional analyses indicate that this attenuation is actually the net result of two unique effects. First, we find that Reg G created a <i>de facto</i> “safe harbor” for non-GAAP reporting among firms in circuits with higher litigation risk and a “curtailment effect” among firms in the circuit with the lowest litigation risk. Overall, Reg G led to a convergence in non-GAAP reporting practices irrespective of firms’ circuit-specific litigation risk. We posit that this net attenuation of litigation risk's influence on non-GAAP reporting is likely an unintended consequence of Reg G.</p>","PeriodicalId":48106,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","volume":"51 3-4","pages":"783-818"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbfa.12766","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbfa.12766","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We examine the joint effects of litigation risk and regulation in shaping firms’ financial reporting decisions. Specifically, we investigate how these disciplining mechanisms influence firms’ disclosure of non-GAAP earnings metrics, which have been at the forefront of the SEC's regulatory concerns in recent years. We employ a plausibly exogenous shock to litigation risk based on a US circuit court ruling to explore how litigation risk influences firms’ non-GAAP earnings disclosures. We find a robust negative relation between litigation risk and both the likelihood and aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting. However, we find a significant attenuation in the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk after the implementation of Regulation G (Reg G), despite evidence that aggressive non-GAAP reporting persists in the post-Reg G environment. Additional analyses indicate that this attenuation is actually the net result of two unique effects. First, we find that Reg G created a de facto “safe harbor” for non-GAAP reporting among firms in circuits with higher litigation risk and a “curtailment effect” among firms in the circuit with the lowest litigation risk. Overall, Reg G led to a convergence in non-GAAP reporting practices irrespective of firms’ circuit-specific litigation risk. We posit that this net attenuation of litigation risk's influence on non-GAAP reporting is likely an unintended consequence of Reg G.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting exists to publish high quality research papers in accounting, corporate finance, corporate governance and their interfaces. The interfaces are relevant in many areas such as financial reporting and communication, valuation, financial performance measurement and managerial reward and control structures. A feature of JBFA is that it recognises that informational problems are pervasive in financial markets and business organisations, and that accounting plays an important role in resolving such problems. JBFA welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions. Nonetheless, theoretical papers should yield novel testable implications, and empirical papers should be theoretically well-motivated. The Editors view accounting and finance as being closely related to economics and, as a consequence, papers submitted will often have theoretical motivations that are grounded in economics. JBFA, however, also seeks papers that complement economics-based theorising with theoretical developments originating in other social science disciplines or traditions. While many papers in JBFA use econometric or related empirical methods, the Editors also welcome contributions that use other empirical research methods. Although the scope of JBFA is broad, it is not a suitable outlet for highly abstract mathematical papers, or empirical papers with inadequate theoretical motivation. Also, papers that study asset pricing, or the operations of financial markets, should have direct implications for one or more of preparers, regulators, users of financial statements, and corporate financial decision makers, or at least should have implications for the development of future research relevant to such users.