The effect of directors' and officers' liability insurance and indemnification on voluntary disclosure : evidence from Canadian firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines whether legal liability coverage, as measured by the level of Directors' and Officers' (D&O) liability insurance coverage and cash for indemnification, is associated with the quantity and quality of the firm's voluntary disclosures. Using Canadian firms whose D&O insurance data are publicly available, I find that the higher the coverage, the more frequent the voluntary disclosures, especially for firms that are cross-listed in the U.S. I also find that more liability coverage also leads to disclosures of more precise, but less timely, bad news for firms that are cross-listed in the U.S., consistent with the litigation cost argument for the disclosure of bad news. Further, cash for indemnification is a more significant determinant of disclosure decisions than D&O insurance for my sample firms. Finally, I provide new empirical evidence that the timing decision of actual earnings announcements is a function of a firm's legal liability coverage and the presence of voluntary disclosures in the form of management earnings forecasts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it