After restating their financial statements, companies may voluntarily restate their previously issued internal control (IC) reports for the financial statement (FS) misstatement periods, changing them from “effective” to “ineffective.” This paper examines the determinants and consequences of IC restatements, which have been of concern to financial statement users. When announcing these IC restatements, companies often provide a detailed explanation of the IC problems and a discussion of their plans to remediate these problems. We find that companies with less severe IC problems that can be remediated more quickly are more likely to restate their IC reports. Moreover, these results are driven by companies with a higher need for external financing, suggesting that IC restaters voluntarily restate their IC reports in order to inform investors about their less severe IC material weaknesses and their plans to improve IC quality. Finally, we find that, relative to other FS restatement companies, IC restaters have a lower likelihood of CFO turnover and auditor resignation following the FS restatement. Taken together, our results suggest that voluntary IC restatements are used by IC restaters as a means to separate themselves from other FS restatement companies with more severe control problems and slower remediation plans. Our findings also indicate that studies investigating IC quality and related disclosures need to distinguish between IC restaters and other FS restatement companies because of the different characteristics and consequences between the two groups.

We examine the effects of corporate networks involving common directors and auditors (i.e., connections creating single or double ties between companies) on two important monitoring roles: financial reporting quality and auditor dismissal decisions. We also investigate how shocks to the networks, in the form of the audit failing to detect misstatements, affect these networks' structure. The investigations are important because these networks can have significant effects on firm governance and may have different effects when they overlap. We have three primary findings about double‐tie networks: (i) there is no evidence that they improve overall financial reporting quality beyond the effect of single‐tie networks; (ii) they lower directors' willingness to dismiss the auditor, even when there is a signal of an audit failure within the network; and (iii) they allow audit‐quality problems to spread between companies. Our results demonstrate the importance of investigating multiple types of networks and how shocks travel through them. Our findings also lend credence to concerns that “cozy” relationships between directors and auditors diminish the link between poor audit quality and market‐imposed reputation penalties—specifically, auditor dismissals.