Search results

This study investigates the relation between lawsuit attributes that support an inference of fraud and the probability and the size of securities lawsuit settlement. A sample of 607 securities lawsuits between 1996 and 2006 is used in the analysis of the probability of settlement and a subsample of 261 lawsuit settlements is used in the analysis of the size of settlement. The empirical results indicate a positive association between the probability of a settlement and accounting irregularity, SEC enforcement action and stock offer. Accounting irregularity and SEC enforcement action are also documented to be positively related to the size of the settlement. The results imply that a stock offer supports a strong inference of fraud and the presence of accounting irregularity and SEC enforcement action in a lawsuit filing strengthens the fraud allegation and increases the likelihood of a settlement. The findings also suggest that the stronger the inference of fraud, the greater the size of the settlement. The results of this study add to our understanding of the determinants of securities lawsuit settlement. Studies using securities litigation as a proxy for fraud can use the results of this study to distinguish between fraud-related and nonfraud-related lawsuits.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relation between the size of the legal penalty for fraud and CEO turnover.

Using a sample of 93 securities lawsuits that were filed in the US between 1997 and 2005, logit regression is used in the analysis of the relation between probability of CEO turnover and size of the litigation monetary penalty and ordinal logit regression is used to examine the relation between timing of CEO turnover and size of the litigation monetary penalty.

A positive association is documented between the size of the monetary penalty and the probability of CEO turnover. A larger monetary penalty is associated with earlier CEO turnover. Equity issue related securities lawsuit is associated with a higher probability of CEO turnover and an earlier CEO turnover.

The results imply that the greater the legal penalty levied on the sued firm, the more likely the CEO is considered as being complicit in the alleged fraud. A limitation of this study is that in constructing the sample, some meritorious lawsuits that may have resulted in legal penalty but were dismissed for procedural reasons were excluded. Further, the CEO turnover data did not provide sufficient information about the reason for the termination of the CEOs.

This is one of the first empirical studies to examine the relation between the legal penalty for fraud and CEO turnover in the period after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. This study adds to the existing literature on the consequences of financial misreporting on managers by documenting an association between the legal penalty for fraud and CEO turnover.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relation between CEO option grants at the beginning of the class period (BCP) and investor reaction to announcement of restatement‐induced securities litigation.

Using a restatement‐induced lawsuit sample over the period 1997‐2005, this study performs cross‐sectional linear regressions of three‐day litigation announcement cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) on CEO option grants, cash compensation, corporate governance and control variables. CARs are calculated over the three‐day (−1,1) interval relative to the lawsuit announcement date using a single‐factor market model, the CRSP equally‐weighted market index, and a 255‐day estimation period ending 45 days prior to the announcement.

A negative association is reported between CEO option grants and investor reaction around restatement‐induced lawsuit announcement.

It is possible that some restatements may have triggered a securities lawsuit but because it was not explicitly stated, they were not included in the restatement‐induced lawsuit sample. Another limitation of the study is that the qualitative aspects of the internal corporate governance variables may not have been sufficiently captured in the analyses.

The reported result suggests that the market considers CEO option grants as an indication that a restatement‐induced securities lawsuit has merit. The finding also implies that although CEO option grants may not be exercised during the class period, the market imposes higher penalties on firms that offer higher equity compensation to their CEOs at the beginning of the class period.

The purpose of this paper is to study the relation between compensation clawbacks and lawsuits and analyze how these two corporate disciplinary forces interact. This paper hypothesizes that by allowing firms to recoup compensation from managers who breach their fiduciary duty, clawbacks provide a form of discipline that potentially reduces the likelihood of managerial wrongdoing, which, in turn, lowers the risk of corporate lawsuits.

This paper identifies whether or not a company in the S&P 1500 had a clawback policy between 2007 and 2014 by searching the company filings and press releases. The authors also construct different proxies for litigation risk and lawsuit outcomes using the Audit Analytics Database. They then perform a variety of empirical tests to examine the association between clawbacks and litigation risk and the association between clawbacks and litigation outcomes.

This paper finds that firms with higher litigation risk are more likely to adopt a clawback policy. In addition, after the adoption of clawback provisions, litigation risk significantly declines, suggesting that clawback policies are effective in reducing the likelihood of corporate lawsuits. Furthermore, firms with clawback policies are approximately 50 per cent more likely to have lawsuits against them dismissed or settled for lower amounts (approximately 12 per cent lower).

The findings of this paper provide insights to the efficacy of a current change in compensation regulation, the mandatory clawback adoption requirement by the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010.

This paper contributes to the literature on both clawbacks and litigation, as it is the first to analyze the relation between the two.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the trading patterns of corporate insiders, both managing and non-managing, around the announcement dates of securities class action lawsuits and related legal settlements.

The authors use market model event study methodology to examine the impact of class action litigation and settlement announcements on the stock prices of sued firms. The authors then determine the extent of abnormal insider trading surrounding such announcements by comparing insider trading activity (volume and transaction counts) to prior insider trading in the same firm, and to a matched sample of firms not experiencing such litigation announcements. A multivariate framework is utilized to provide further insight into the determinants of such abnormal insider trading.

The authors establish that class action litigation and settlement announcements have a significant impact on the stock prices of sued firms, and that foreknowledge of these events appears to be used by insiders to earn abnormal profits. Moreover, results indicate that managing insiders exhibit higher opportunistic abnormal trading activity than non-managing insiders. Multivariate analysis shows that size, prior firm returns, and the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are important determinants of such insider trading.

This appears to be the first paper to analyze insider trading surrounding class action settlement announcements, and raises concerns about the ethical conduct of certain insider groups while highlighting the importance of access to private information, even amongst insiders themselves.

Considering the importance of environmental lawsuits in the capital market specifically and society more generally, the authors examine whether environmental lawsuits are related to the cost of bank loans for the first time.

This study uses a US sample of 7,684 loans from 1,409 individual borrowing firms over the 1995–2015 period. The hypothesis is tested using lagged data from the year before the start of a bank loan, and firm fixed effects panel regression analysis is applied to control for correlated omitted variable bias. To further address endogeneity concerns, the authors use a difference in differences analysis that exploits the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on April 20, 2010, to establish causality. Finally, the authors use the entropy balancing method as an additional endogeneity check.

The authors find a positive relationship between environmental lawsuits and firms' bank loan costs. The results are economically significant. In particular, a one standard deviation increase in environmental lawsuits is related to a 2.07 basis point increase in bank loan costs. The results are robust to various endogeneity checks. Cross-sectional analyses indicate that a poor information environment, weak corporate governance, and low corporate social responsibility (CSR) levels strengthen the positive relationship between environmental lawsuits and bank loan costs. Finally, additional analyses show that environmental lawsuits are significantly negatively related to the loan amount and maturity contract provisions.

The authors provide new empirical evidence that increasing understanding of the economic consequences of environmental lawsuits on bank loan costs.

The purpose of this paper is to identify trends in the unfolding wave of crypto-securities cases targeting initial coin offerings and discuss the reasons why these suits will likely proliferate.

The authors of this paper, all attorneys, conducted a review of 13 crypto-securities cases filed as of February 8, 2018. High-level common themes and trends were identified based on that review.

This paper concludes that, for multiple reasons, the number of crypto-securities suits is likely to rise in 2018.

This paper contains in-depth analysis about trends in crypto-securities suits from experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the relationship between litigation risk and payout policy.

The authors employ various regression techniques including probit, logit and tobit regression methodologies to study the relationship between litigation risk (contemporaneous measures, litigation dummy) and payout policy (dividend payout likelihood and dividend yield). The authors also conduct several robustness tests.

The authors find that firms involved in a lawsuit have a lower propensity to distribute dividends to shareholders. In particular, the authors document a negative relationship between litigation risk and payout policy as measured by dividend payout likelihood and dividend yield. The results are robust to a series of robustness tests including using alternate regression specifications, alternate measures of litigation and payout policy, a propensity-score matched sample and using an instrumental variable.

The paper identifies another determinant of payout policy and documents another avenue whereby legal institutions affect corporate payout policy. The link between litigation risk and payout policy is of interest to the business community, financial economists, management and the investing public.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the association between litigation risk and working capital management.

The authors employ four different regression techniques (OLS regressions, regressions with industry and time controls, median regressions, and Fama Macbeth regressions) to study the relation between litigation risk (contemporaneous and lagged measures) and working capital management (cash conversion cycle (CCC) and its components). The authors also conduct numerous robustness tests.

The authors find that high-litigation risk firms tend to have longer CCC. Decomposing CCC into days receivable outstanding, days inventory outstanding and days payable outstanding, the authors find that high-litigation risk firms have longer receivable periods, take a longer time to convert inventory to cash and do not pay their suppliers promptly. These results are robust to a series of robustness tests including using an alternate measure of working capital and accounting for firm type (high-tech vs labor intensive).

This paper contributes in several ways to the litigation and corporate finance literature. The authors identify another determinant of working capital management and document another avenue whereby legal institutions affect short-term financial decision making. The link between litigation risk and working capital management is of interest to the business community, financial economists, management and the investing public.

The authors study how shareholder litigation risk impacts a firm’s decision of real earnings management (REM). This paper aims to shed light on how shareholder litigation risk impacts REM. The authors further explore how the intensifying effect varies systematically conditioning on the degree of information asymmetry and the strength of internal corporate governance.

In this study, the authors use the 1999 Ninth Circuit Court ruling as a quasi-experiment that reduces shareholder litigation risk to address endogeneity and establish a causal inference.

The difference-in-difference tests suggest lower shareholder litigation risk intensifies REM. In other words, higher litigation risk mitigates REM. Cross-sectional test results suggest the negative effect of decreased shareholder litigation is more pronounced when monitoring difficulty is higher, when information environment is more impoverished and when internal corporate governance is weaker. The negative effect is also stronger in firms with higher sensitivity to legal threats.

Protection of investors’ interest is the focus of corporate governance. Designed as an important corporate governance mechanism, shareholder litigation enables investors to pursue legal actions to recover their losses in the event of corporate misbehaviors. However, whether shareholder litigation is an effective corporate governance tool and beneficial to shareholders and firms is not without controversy. The authors contribute to the debate by providing evidence that supports the argument that shareholder litigation threat significantly disciplines REM, a form of costlier earnings management technique and myopic investment behavior.