英语翻译Most recently,Khurana and Raman (2004) report that the p

英语翻译
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 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 to third parties’,either of which are difficult to
demonstrate (European Commission 2001).As Gietzmann and Quick (1998,p.92) summarize:

最近,库拉那与雷曼 (2004) 报告了大型审计事务所的现状是产权资本的事后估计成本逆向地在美国(一个常见诉讼的国家),而不是澳大利亚,加拿大或者英国(相对而言股东诉讼要少一些的国家).从这些发现来看,他们断定 “… 诉讼 影响着,而不是声誉的保护,驱使着感知更高质量和四大事务所的审计所财务报告的可信性” (p.475).
2.3德国背景与 科诺特公司 AG / 毕马威会计师事务所事件
2.3.1.德国背景.德国的若干独特性对我们的研究是很重要的.刚开始,客户与投资者诉讼审计员
财务报表的误报与损失联系在一起相对还是有些难度的.客户可以以违反合同为由诉诸法律,但是德国的法律是加以一个相当高的限制的,
要求他们证明审计人员的行为是故意的或者是对真相不顾后果的漠视,投资者可以根据民事责任的法规进行起诉,然而德国的法律要求他们展示他们拥有一份含蓄的合同或者
合同上有着‘保护第三方利益’的字样,任何一个都难以证明
（欧洲委员会 2001）.像杰特兹曼与奎克 (1998,见92页) 所概括的那样：