Information Bundling and Securities Litigation

Barbara A. Bliss, Frank Partnoy, Michael Furchtgott
{"title":"Information Bundling and Securities Litigation","authors":"Barbara A. Bliss, Frank Partnoy, Michael Furchtgott","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2795164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We exploit the exogenous shock of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision on securities class action loss causation requirements to examine two ways that firms bundle information with restatements: “positive bundling” of good news and “noise bundling” of additional bad news. We find that positive bundling offsets price declines and results in less litigation. In contrast, noise bundling magnifies price declines, but nevertheless deters litigation by confounding which bad news caused a decline. Non-bundled restatements are 5.94 times more likely to result in litigation. Bundled restatements have 8.17 times higher dismissal rates and $21.17 to $23.45 million lower settlement amounts.","PeriodicalId":289542,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Litigation (Sub-Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Litigation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

We exploit the exogenous shock of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision on securities class action loss causation requirements to examine two ways that firms bundle information with restatements: “positive bundling” of good news and “noise bundling” of additional bad news. We find that positive bundling offsets price declines and results in less litigation. In contrast, noise bundling magnifies price declines, but nevertheless deters litigation by confounding which bad news caused a decline. Non-bundled restatements are 5.94 times more likely to result in litigation. Bundled restatements have 8.17 times higher dismissal rates and $21.17 to $23.45 million lower settlement amounts.
信息捆绑和证券诉讼
我们利用2005年美国最高法院关于证券集体诉讼损失因果关系要求的判决的外生冲击来研究公司将信息与重述捆绑在一起的两种方式:好消息的“积极捆绑”和额外坏消息的“噪音捆绑”。我们发现,积极的捆绑抵消了价格下降,并减少了诉讼。相比之下,噪音捆绑放大了价格下跌,但由于混淆了哪些坏消息导致了下跌,因此阻止了诉讼。非捆绑重述导致诉讼的可能性要高出5.94倍。捆绑重述的驳回率高出8.17倍,和解金额减少21.17万至2345万美元。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信