A Theory of Corporate Scandals: Why the USA and Europe Differ

By John C. Coffee. 2005

341 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f27b24cb069938f105b3bbdbff72934c7fb8edc6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

Citations in the corpus

Does Mandatory IFRS Adoption Affect Crash Risk (2015, neutral): “A classic example is the downfall of Parmalat, whose opaque financial reporting enabled insiders to hide their tunneling activities for over a decade (Coffee, 2005).”
Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives (2008, neutral): “…Crossing in the US; Parmalat and Cirio in Italy; Ahold in the Netherlands; etc.) have forced politicians, national stock exchanges, financial authorities, and supranational organizations (such as EU, OECD or IMF) to search for more effective governance practices (e.g. Coffee, 2005; Hill, 2005).”
Corporate Governance Reforms in Continental Europe (2007, background): “These differences should lead to different regulatory responses in different countries (Coffee, 2005).”
Non-audit Services and Audit Quality: Evidence from Private Firms (2013, background): “Certain characteristics of the auditor–client relationship are different in private firms compared to public firms (see Coffee, 2005).”
External Auditors, Audit Committees and Earnings Management in France (2007, background): “As explained by Coffee (2005), this is consistent with the ownership concentration that characterises European countries and France in particular.”
Financial Fraud: A Literature Review (2018, neutral): “Such work could build on existing work in the ﬁeld of comparative political economy and on literature in law and ﬁnance (e.g. La Porta et al. , 1998; Coffee, 2005; Deakin et al. , 2015).”
Comparative and International Corporate Governance (2010, background): “Coffee (2005) provides additional evidence against the LLSV hypothesis (e.”
Board Independence, CEO Duality and Accrual Management: Malaysian Evidence (2008, background): “(2003), Davidson et al. (2005) and Abdul Rahman and Mohamed Ali (2006) fail to find empirical support on the association between CEO duality and earnings management activity in their study.”
Toward a theory of business (2015, background): “Looking at the data on earning restatements in the 1990–2004 time period, Coffee (2005, p. 201) concluded that there was ‘‘a hyperbolic rate of increase around the turn of the millennium.’’”