Explore the vast range of titles available.

An extensive literature examines the causes and effects of financial misconduct based on samples drawn from four popular databases that identify restatements, securities class action lawsuits, and Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). We show that the results from empirical tests can depend on which database is accessed. To examine the causes of such discrepancies, we compare the information in each database to a detailed sample of 1,243 case histories in which regulators brought enforcement actions for financial misrepresentation. These comparisons allow us to identify, measure, and estimate the economic importance of four features of each database that affect inferences from empirical tests. We show the extent to which each database is subject to these concerns and offer suggestions for researchers using these databases.

We document 45 specific allegations related to audit deficiencies based on GAAS, as detailed in 141 AAERs and 153 securities class action lawsuits over the violation years 1978–2016. Next, we use these allegations to validate popular proxies of audit quality. Of all the audit quality proxies, we find that restatements consistently predict all of the top six most cited audit deficiencies. The ratio of audit fees to total fees and the presence of a city specialist auditor predict five of the most cited deficiencies. Overall, our results suggest that the predictive power of audit quality proxies depends on (i) the settings that researchers are interested in and (ii) the specific audit deficiencies hypothesized to matter in the investigated setting. For instance, future studies related to auditor independence might consider using restatements and the ratio of audit fees to total fees as proxies of audit quality.

Research summary: Tournament theory suggests that a large gap in pay between CEOs and top managers can provide incentives to perform, but we argue that it can also elicit negative effort and even motivate the kind of behavior that leads to lawsuits. We posit that this negative effort is greater when firms have high levels of unrelated diversification because there is less operational interdependency, so tournament effects are stronger. We also contend that the influence of tournament incentives on behavior leading to lawsuits is weaker when environmental uncertainty is high. We discuss the consequences of these findings for research on fraud and tournament theory as well as the practical repercussions for firms, investors, and policymakers. Managerial summary: Each year, the press has afield day when companies announce the outsized compensation packages laid out for CEOs. Economists use \"tournament theory\" to describe how high CEO pay motivates everyone else to work hard to get into the top job. The problem with this approach is that, yes, top managers work harder when the gap between their and the CEO ' s pay increases, but as that gap widens, it also incentivizes top managers to cheat or cut corners. As a result, we find that the gap between CEO and top manager compensation predicts the likelihood that shareholders will file a securities class action lawsuit against the company. This gap in pay is an especially good predictor of law suits for highly unrelated diversified companies and companies facing a low level of external uncertainty.

We examine the relation between disclosure tone and shareholder litigation to determine whether managers' use of optimistic language increases litigation risk. Using both general-purpose and context-specific text dictionaries to quantify tone, we find that plaintiffs target more optimistic statements in their lawsuits and that sued firms' earnings announcements are unusually optimistic relative to other firms experiencing similar economic circumstances. These findings are consistent with optimistic language increasing litigation risk. In addition, we find incrementally greater litigation risk when managers are both unusually optimistic and engage in abnormal selling. This finding suggests that firms can mitigate litigation risk by ensuring that optimistic statements are not contradicted by insider selling. Finally, we find that insider selling is associated with litigation risk only when contemporaneous disclosures are unusually optimistic.

This Article studies the Israeli courts’ approach to choice of law in securities class actions against dual-listed companies, and its unexpected adverse effects on Israeli shareholders. Israeli courts apply American law to dual-listed companies, as an inducement for companies to list their shares for trade on the Tel Aviv stock exchange. However, one of the outcomes of this choice was to enable American attorneys to include Israeli-traded shares in American securities class actions. The Article claims that this outcome might undermine Israeli shareholders’ rights and reduce their expected compensation.

The risk of securities class action litigation alters corporate savings and investment policy. Firms with greater exposure to securities litigation hold significantly more cash in anticipation of future settlements and other related costs. The result is due to firms accumulating cash in anticipation of lawsuits and not a consequence of plaintiffs targeting firms with high cash levels. The market value of cash is lower for firms exposed to litigation risk. Corporate investment decisions are also affected by litigation risk, as firms reduce capital expenditures in response. Our results are robust to endogeneity concerns and possible spurious temporal effects.

This paper documents significantly negative stock price reactions to shareholder-initiated class action lawsuits. We find that shareholders partially anticipate these lawsuits based on lawsuit filings against other firms in the same industry and capitalize part of these losses prior to a lawsuit filing date. We show that the more likely a firm is to be sued, the larger the partial anticipation effect (shareholder losses capitalized prior to a lawsuit filing date) and the smaller the filing date effect (shareholder losses measured on the lawsuit filing date). Our evidence suggests that previous research that typically focuses on the filing date effect understates the magnitude of shareholder losses, and that such an understatement is greater for firms with a higher likelihood of being sued.

Existing studies tend to focus on how a legal system reinforces the efficiency of its domestic firms or foreign companies that are subject to its domestic jurisdiction (e.g., via cross-listing). Our study provides critical normative implications in the era of financial globalization by showing that the influence of a country’s legal institutions extend beyond its territorial boundaries. We examine whether US shareholder-initiated class action lawsuits can discipline non-US firms. Using an international sample of firms over the period 1994–2019, we find that a US class action lawsuit against a non-US firm cross-listed in the US negatively affects the value of its non-US-listed industry peers. The effect is robust in both event-based analyses for short-term market reaction and stacked difference-in-difference analyses for long-term valuation. We uncover two economic mechanisms underlying this effect: information sharing and policy coordination between the US and the non-US firm’s home country. Specifically, the cross-border disciplining effect is more pronounced for firms from countries that lack information and that coordinate with the US at the policy level. Moreover, non-US peer firms subsequently improve their governance practices and financial policies to restore shareholder value. Our findings suggest that private enforcement in the US has a worldwide influence.

This research examines the relation between shareholder litigation and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Exploiting exogenous changes in shareholder litigation rights following the staggered adoption of universal demand laws by U.S. states and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on securities class action lawsuits, we show that weaker shareholder litigation rights lead to lower CSR scores. Moreover, the relation is stronger for firms facing higher litigation risk, and a decreased CSR score enhances firm value. Our evidence suggests that firms engage in CSR activities partly to reduce shareholder litigation risk ex ante and mitigate its consequences ex post.

Even as the U.S. government, among others, pursues civil and criminal actions against physicians and pharmacies to address inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of opioids, a variety of lawsuits are being filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors.