Citing fear of legal liability as a partial explanation, prior research documents (1) managers' reluctance to voluntarily disclose management earnings forecasts, and (2) greater forecast disclosure frequencies in periods of bad news. We provide evidence on how management earnings forecast disclosure differs between the United States (U.S.) and Canada, two otherwise similar business environments with different legal regimes. Canadian securities laws and judicial interpretations create a far less litigious environment than exists in the U.S. We find a greater frequency of management earnings forecast disclosure in Canada relative to the U.S. Further, although U.S. managers are relatively more likely to issue forecasts during interim periods in which earnings decrease, Canadian managers do not exhibit that tendency. Instead, Canadian managers issue more forecasts when earnings are increasing, and their forecasts are of annual rather than interim earnings. Also consistent with a less litigious environment, Canadian managers issue more precise and longer-term forecasts. These findings hold after controlling for other determinants of management earnings forecast disclosure that might differ between the two countries—firm size, earnings volatility, information asymmetry, growth, capitalization rates, and membership in high-technology and regulated industries.

This study provides evidence on how auditors' use of decision aids affects jurors' evaluation of auditor legal liability, based on an experiment in which actual jurors responded to a hypothetical audit lawsuit. The results suggest that decision aids can have positive, negative, or neutral effects on auditors' legal liability, depending on how auditors use the decision aid and the reliability of the decision aid. For high-reliability aids, jurors attributed more responsibility for an audit failure to the auditor when the auditor overrode the recommendation of a decision aid than when the auditor did not use the decision aid. However, jurors attributed lower responsibility to an auditor who relied on the recommendation of a highly reliable decision aid, even though the aid turned out to be incorrect. In contrast to the high-reliability conditions, auditors' use of the decision aid had virtually no impact on jurors' liability judgments when the reliability of the decision aid was low.

Losing Sleep at the Market: The Daylight Saving Anomaly: Reply by Mark J. Kamstra, Lisa A. Kramer and Maurice D. Levi. Published in volume 92, issue 4, pages 1257-1263 of American Economic Review, September 2002