Corporate social responsibility and litigation risk: Evidence from securities class action lawsuits

This study examines whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) is associated with the likelihood and outcomes of securities class action lawsuits. We find a lower likelihood of securities litigation for firms with higher CSR. This effect is larger for companies with lower levels of financial distress, companies with larger proportions of institutional investors, and for internal CSR. Additionally, CSR has a mitigating effect on negative market assessments around the filing dates of securities litigation. The results suggest that higher CSR firms are less likely to engage in financial misconduct, and investors are less likely to penalise them for such occurrences.     

Board, audit committee and restatement-induced class action lawsuits

We examine the influence of monitoring provided by the board and audit committee on the probability of restatement-induced securities class action lawsuits using a sample of firms that have restated earnings in the period of 1997-2002. Logistic regression of the probability of restatement-induced class action lawsuits indicates a negative association between proportion of independent board members and the likelihood of restatement-induced class action lawsuits. We also find that when the market reacts more negatively to restatement announcements, shareholders are more likely to initiate a class action lawsuit. Finally, we document that restatement of revenues is positively associated with the likelihood of restatement-induced shareholder litigation. Our results are robust after controlling for the restatement initiator, restatements categorized as irregularities and Blue Ribbon Recommendations.     

The effect of securities class action lawsuits on mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates whether shareholder class action litigation affects the takeover candidacy, premium, and completion rate of mergers and acquisitions involving defendant target firms. We use a comprehensive dataset of publicly traded U.S. firms that became the targets of takeover bids between 1998 and 2016 and find that firms subject to shareholder class action lawsuits within the previous two years are more likely to be targeted for acquisition while commanding a significantly higher premium. Firms that face such litigation after a takeover announcement experience a significant decrease in takeover completion.     

Litigation risk,financial reporting and auditing: A survey of the literature

This paper surveys the literature on the determinants and consequences of securities class action lawsuits against firms and auditors from a financial reporting quality perspective. The survey is motivated by the important role that law plays in protecting stakeholders' interests against managerial misdeed. Litigation is, thus, an important topic and numerous studies investigate the determinants and consequences of firm and auditor lawsuits. The underlying premise of these studies is built on the notion that large financial and reputational penalties associated with successful securities class actions can discipline management and deter them from future wrongdoing. The survey documents that poor quality financial reporting as evidenced in earnings restatements has been the primary antecedent for class action lawsuits against the firm and auditors. Lawsuits against auditors affect audit fees, audit planning decisions and client portfolio adjustment decisions. Although significant progress has been made in terms of further understanding the causes and consequences of litigation against auditors, major challenges remain in the area of proper measurement of litigation risk.     

Accountability of independent directors: Evidence from firms subject to securities litigation

We examine which independent directors are held accountable when investors sue firms for financial and disclosure-related fraud. Investors can name independent directors as defendants in lawsuits, and they can vote against their reelection to express displeasure over the directors’ ineffectiveness at monitoring managers. In a sample of securities class action lawsuits from 1996 to 2010, about 11% of independent directors are named as defendants. The likelihood of being named is greater for audit committee members and directors who sell stock during the class period. Named directors receive more negative recommendations from Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy advisory firm, and significantly more negative votes from shareholders than directors in a benchmark sample. They are also more likely than other independent directors to leave sued firms. Overall, shareholders use litigation along with director elections and director retention to hold some independent directors more accountable than others when firms experience financial fraud.     

Judge political affiliation and impacts of corporate environmental litigation

This study examines the role of judges' political affiliation in determining the outcomes of environmental lawsuits filed against public corporations and their economic impacts on the defendant firms. Drawing on legal theories of judicial decision making, individual judges are expected to play an important role in influencing lawsuit outcomes and consequently the sued firms' shareholder wealth. This study employs a hand-collected sample of environmental lawsuits filed in the U.S. Federal District Courts against public firms during 2000–2015, utilizing the random assignment of judges to lawsuits to combat endogeneity concerns. The empirical evidence shows that lawsuits with Republican-appointed judges are approximately 12% less likely to succeed in reaching a settlement compared with those adjudicated by Democratic-appointed judges, holding constant other lawsuit-, judge-, and firm-specific factors. Further, investors of defendant firms react more favorably to the outcome of a lawsuit adjudicated by a Republican-appointed judge compared with a Democratic appointee: the difference of 0.6% of market value during the three-day period surrounding the lawsuit conclusion represents a substantial saving of shareholder wealth. These significant differences are not attributable to alternative explanations, such as other judge idiosyncrasies or firm characteristics, and remain robust to a series of additional analyses. These empirical findings offer new insights into the significant impacts of judge political affiliation on corporate environmental litigation and provide novel evidence on the magnitude of their economic consequences.     

Federal Judge Ideology: A New Measure of Ex Ante Litigation Risk

Drawing on the political theory of judicial decision making, our paper proposes a new and parsimonious ex ante litigation risk measure: federal judge ideology. We find that judge ideology complements existing measures of litigation risk based on industry membership and firm characteristics. Firms in liberal circuits (the third quartile in ideology) are 33.5% more likely to be sued in securities class action lawsuits than those in conservative circuits (the first quartile in ideology). This result is stronger after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Tellabs case. We next show that the effect of judge ideology on litigation risk is greater for firms with more sophisticated shareholders and with higher expected litigation costs. Furthermore, judicial appointments affect litigation risk and the value of firms in the circuit, highlighting the economic consequences of political appointments of judges. Finally, using our new measure, we document that litigation risk deters managers from providing long‐term earnings guidance, a result that existing measures of litigation risk cannot show.     

The causes and consequences of securities class action litigation

We examine the impact of securities class action lawsuits on firms' investment and financing choices. Firms which overinvest are more likely to be sued. After a lawsuit, firms on average decrease overinvestment activity, and they decrease payouts while increasing leverage, cash holdings, and firm-specific risk. Additionally, we find some evidence that firms decrease diversification post-suit. Overall, these changes are consistent with a post-suit decrease in agency problems which lead to significant changes in real investment policies. The evidence is consistent with the notion that security class action lawsuits draw attention to agency problems which are then at least partly resolved.     

Disclosure and the outcome of securities litigation

Review of Accounting Studies - We examine the impact of disclosure by defendant firms on the outcome of securities fraud class actions. We hypothesize that firms issuing a higher quantity of...     

Securities class actions and conditional conservatism: Evidence from two legal events

We use two US court rulings as exogenous shocks to firms' litigation environment and examine the changes in conservative financial reporting following these court decisions. The Silicon Graphics ruling in 1999 imposed a heightened pleading standard and discouraged the filing of shareholder lawsuits against firms with headquarters in the Ninth Circuit. The Tellabs ruling in 2007, however, effectively reversed the Silicon Graphics ruling and made it easier to file securities litigation against Ninth Circuit firms. We predict and find that the reduced litigation risk following the Silicon Graphics ruling discourages conservative reporting for Ninth Circuit firms. By contrast, the elevated threat of shareholder lawsuits following the Tellabs ruling encourages conservative reporting for Ninth Circuit firms relative to non-Ninth Circuit firms. The disciplining effect of the threat of shareholder lawsuits on conservatism is stronger for firms facing higher ex ante litigation risk. The litigation-risk-induced increase (decrease) in reporting conservatism leads to higher (lower) firm valuations.     

The cost of disclosure regulation: evidence from D&O insurance and nonmeritorious securities litigation

This study examines whether the required disclosure of directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance premiums leads to nonmeritorious securities litigation. Our research setting uses a proprietary D&O insurance database that includes New York and non-New York firms, combined with the fact that New York firms must disclose D&O insurance premiums. We thus can exploit a natural experiment based on inter-state variation in disclosure regulation. Disclosed premiums may influence case selection in two ways. First, higher premiums signal higher limits, which plaintiffs’ lawyers likely believe enable higher settlements. Second, higher premiums indicate higher risk assessments from insurers and thus a higher likelihood that stock price drops signal misconduct rather than bad luck. We find that D&O insurance premiums for New York firms are associated with a higher dismissal rate. Offsetting this higher dismissal rate, plaintiffs’ lawyers can achieve higher settlements in the relatively few successful cases.     

Institutional monitoring and litigation risk: Evidence from employee disputes

In this article, we investigate how institutional investors help mitigate business‐related risks in a corporate environment. Using a large sample of employment disputes, litigations, and court cases, we find that institutional investors play a significant role in reducing employment litigation. We observe that firms with larger shares of institutional ownership have a lower incidence of employment lawsuits and that long‐term institutional investors are more effective at decreasing employee mistreatment. Our results suggest that institutional investors can improve the employee work environment and help mitigate future employee litigation. The improvement in employee work conditions has been shown to increase a firm's value through increased employee output, reduced litigation, and direct and indirect costs. Our results shed light on the effectiveness of institutional monitoring on a firm's litigation risk.     

Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative

This study extends the Palmrose and Scholz (2004) general litigation and general restatements study by focusing on auditor litigation and revenue restatements. We investigate all potential accounting issues, individually, instead of by their group method, with regard to auditor litigation. The impact of the individual accounting issues implicated in restatements is of concern to auditors and audit standard setters in gauging auditor litigation risk and audit risk. It also is important for financial analysis and securities valuation because investors' losses are greater, and recovery of losses on a percentage basis is lower, when the auditor is a defendant, and especially when the auditor has a more severe, negative litigation experience (Commolli et al., 2012). We examine financial reporting lawsuits filed from 2001 to 2008 and find that revenue restatements—far more than any other kind of restatements—are associated with auditors being named defendants and also auditors experiencing a more severe, negative outcome in the litigation.     

Stock Price Response to News of Securities Fraud Litigation: An Analysis of Sequential and Conditional Information

This study examines investor response to three events that help define a federal class action securities lawsuit, specifically, the announcement that names an issuer as a defendant in the lawsuit (at the class action filing date), the disclosure or accounting restatement that 'corrects' the information deficiency (at the end of the class period), and the date at which the fraud on the market allegedly begins (at the beginning of the class period). We document a significant and predictable stock price response at each of these three events. Our tests also indicate that the market interprets these events not in isolation but as sequential and conditional events. Investor response differs on the basis of the characteristics of the issuer, the allegations in the complaint, and the outcome of the litigation. These results and the fact that we observe no systematic price momentum in investor response beyond the announcement dates imply that the market is reasonably efficient with respect to information about securities fraud litigation. Our results are robust to alternative definitions and procedures, and are based on a proprietary database that includes almost all federal securities class action lawsuits since 1990.     

Litigation exposure,capital structure and shareholder value: the case of Brooke Group

We examine value creation and destruction in the tobacco industry due to the radical litigation strategy of Brooke Group CEO Bennett LeBow. Brooke Group had tiny market share, low margins, high leverage and highly concentrated management ownership. Beginning in 1996, the firm reached settlements in lawsuits brought against all cigarette companies by class action plaintiffs and US state governments. Brooke Group's actions, which included promises to cooperate in litigation against its rivals, spurred other companies to reach settlements on less favorable terms. These events led to massive wealth destruction within the industry but impressive returns for shareholders of Brooke Group.     

Do Banks Price Litigation Risk in Debt Contracting? Evidence from Class Action Lawsuits

Class action lawsuits can be detrimental to debtholders because they deteriorate defendant firms’ financial position and lower these firms’ value. This study examines whether banks price their borrowers’ litigation risk in debt contracting. We find that banks charge 19% higher interest spreads on loans to lawsuit firms after litigation. In addition, banks monitor lawsuit firms more closely by using tighter non‐price terms. The results are robust after correcting for possible endogeneity issues using the propensity score matching approach. We further find that the effects of lawsuit filing are more pronounced for firms with weaker corporate governance. Following a lawsuit in the industry, banks also perceive an increased likelihood of litigation for industry peer firms and adjust price and non‐price terms accordingly. Finally, we find that the magnitude of the lawsuit filing effect is greater for firms with lower ex‐ante litigation risk. Taken as a whole, our findings suggest that banks, as informed stakeholders, perceive litigation risk to be detrimental and price this risk in debt contracting.     

Strategic Conservative Earnings Management of Technology Firms: Evidence from the IPO Market

In this paper, we investigate the conservative earnings management strategies of technology firms in the IPO market. We hypothesize that technology IPOs, due to their fewer tangible assets, more information asymmetry, and higher uncertainties of future cash flows, tend to have higher litigation risk. At equilibrium, technology firms are more motivated to strategically employ conservative earnings management during the IPO process, to mitigate their higher litigation risk. Using a sample of U.S. IPOs, we find that technology IPOs, on average, involve significantly more conservative earnings management, especially during the bubble periods. Our results also show that the conservative earnings management strategies of technology firms tends to have a greater impact on their underpricing than for non‐tech firms, and thus effectively reduce their risk of being a target in the securities class action lawsuits.     

Shareholder litigation rights and stock price crash risk

We study the impact of shareholder-initiated litigation risk on a firm's stock price crash risk. Our empirical analysis takes advantage of the staggered adoption of universal demand laws, which led to an exogenous decline in derivative litigation risk. We find that a decline in the threat of derivative litigation reduces crash risk and that information hoarding associated with earnings management is a channel through which litigation risk affects crash risk. The relationship is also moderated by how exposed firms are to the other primary form of shareholder litigation, namely securities class-action lawsuits.     

Corporate governance and firm value at dual class firms

This study explores whether corporate governance at dual class firms differs from that of their single class counterparts and whether firm value at dual class firms is associated with governance. Employing a sample of 1309 U.S. dual class firm‐year observations for the period 1996–2006, we show evidence that dual class firms are more likely to employ more shareholder rights provisions while exhibiting lower board and board committee independence than single class firms. The results also show that shareholder rights increase while board provisions decrease in wedge at dual class firms. Further findings underscore that firm value at dual class firms decreases in wedge, and increases in shareholder rights and in board‐related provisions, particularly in director independence. While strong board‐related governance at dual class firms is significantly positively related to firm value in a multivariate setting, shareholder rights are significantly associated with firm value only in instances of the weakest board provisions. Following unification, firms employ more antitakeover provisions while strengthening their board and board committee independence.     

制度变迁、集团客户重要性与非标准审计意见

客户重要性是否影响审计师独立性,是审计理论界和实务界都非常关注的话题。本文以企业集团作为一个整体来研究集团客户重要性对审计师独立性的影响,发现集团客户经济依赖性会损害审计师的独立性,这种现象对于小规模事务所而言尤为严重。此外,本文还进一步考察了2007年新会计准则、审计准则及事务所民事诉讼风险加强等制度环境变化对审计师行为的影响。研究发现,在制度环境改善之后,审计师执业总体上变得更加谨慎,大规模事务所尤其如此。