Help
Cart
Skip main navigation

Available Issues

April 10, 2013 - June 5, 2026

Available Issues

April 10, 2013 - June 5, 2026

Attracting the Sharks: Corporate Innovation and Securities Class Action Lawsuits

Published Online:11 Apr 2022https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4388

References

  • Abrams D, Akcigit U, Grennan J (2019) Patent value and citations: Creative destruction or strategic disruption? NBER Working Paper 19647, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  • Alexander JC (1991) Do the merits matter? A study of settlements in securities class actions. Stanford Law Rev. 43(3):497–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Ali A, Kallapur S (2001) Securities price consequences of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and related events. Accounting Rev. 76(3):431–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Bloom N, Schankerman M, Van Reenen J (2013) Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Econometrica 81(4):1347–1393.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Carhart MM (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Finance 52(1):57–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Carlton Fields (2016) The 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey: Best practices in reducing cost and managing risk in class action litigation. Report, Carlton Fields, Tampa, FL. Accessed May 28, 2018, https://classactionsurvey.com/pdf/2016-class-action-survey.pdf.Google Scholar
  • Carlton Fields (2018) The 2018 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey: Best practices in reducing cost and managing risk in class action litigation. Report, Carlton Fields, Tampa, FL. Accessed May 29, 2018, https://classactionsurvey.com/pdf/2018-class-action-survey.pdf.Google Scholar
  • Choi SJ (2007) Do the merits matter less after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act? J. Law Econom. Organ. 23(3):598–626.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Choi SJ, Fisch JE, Pritchard AC (2005) Do institutions matter? The impact of the lead plaintiff provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Washington Univ. Law Quart. 83(4):869–905.Google Scholar
  • Cohen L, Gurun UG, Kominers SD (2016) The growing problem of patent trolling. Science 352(6285):521–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Cohen L, Gurun UG, Kominers SD (2019) Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms. Management Sci. 65(12):5461–5486.Link, Google Scholar
  • Crane AD, Koch A (2018) Shareholder litigation and ownership structure. Management Sci. 64(1):5–23.Link, Google Scholar
  • Deng S, Willis RH, Xu L (2014) Shareholder litigation, reputational loss, and bank loan contracting. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 49(4):1101–1132.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Dyck A, Morse A, Zingales L (2010) Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? J. Finance 65(6):2213–2253.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Dyck A, Morse A, Zingales L (2021) How pervasive is corporate fraud? Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
  • Fama EF, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financial Econom. 33(1):3–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Field L, Lowry M, Shu S (2005) Does disclosure deter or trigger litigation? J. Accounting Econom. 39(3):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Francis J, Philbrick D, Schipper K (1994) Shareholder litigation and corporate disclosures. J. Accounting Res. 32(2):137–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Gande A, Lewis CM (2009) Shareholder-initiated class action lawsuits: Shareholder wealth effects and industry spillovers. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 44(4):823–850.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Griffin PA, Grundfest JA, Perino MA (2004) Stock price response to news of securities fraud litigation: An analysis of sequential and conditional information. Abacus 40(1):21–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Hirshleifer D, Low A, Teoh SH (2012) Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? J. Finance 67(4):1457–1498.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Huang A, Hui KW, Li RZ (2019) Federal judge ideology: A new measure of ex ante litigation risk. J. Accounting Res. 57(2):431–489.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Johnson MF, Kasznik R, Nelson KK (2000) Shareholder wealth effects of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Rev. Accounting Stud. 5(3):217–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Karpoff JM, Lee DS, Martin GS (2008) The cost to firms of cooking the books. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 43(3):581–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Karpoff JM, Koester A, Lee DS, Martin GS (2017) Proxies and databases in financial misconduct research. Accounting Rev. 92(6):129–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Kasznik R, Lev B (1995) To warn or not to warn: Management disclosures in the face of an earnings surprise. Accounting Rev. 70(1):113–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Kim I, Skinner DJ (2012) Measuring securities litigation risk. J. Accounting Econom. 53(1–2):290–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Klock M (2016) Do class action filings affect stock prices? Market reaction to securities class actions post PSLRA. J. Bus. Securities Law 15(2):110–156.Google Scholar
  • Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2017) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Lemley M, Sampat B (2012) Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(3):817–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Lerner J, Seru A (2017) The use and misuse of patent data: Issues for corporate finance and beyond. NBER Working Paper 24053, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Lin C, Liu S, Manso G (2021) Shareholder litigation and corporate innovation. Management Sci. 67(6):3321–3984.Google Scholar
  • Malmendier U, Tate G (2005) CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. J. Finance 60(6):2661–2700.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Matray A, Hombert J (2018) Can innovation help U.S. manufacturing firms escape import competition from China? J. Finance 73(5):2003–2039.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • McKinsey & Company (2007) Sustaining New York’s and the US’ global financial services leadership. Report commissioned by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Charles E. Schumer, City of New York, New York.Google Scholar
  • Mezzanotti F (2021) Roadblock to innovation: The role of patent litigation in corporate R&D. Management Sci. 67(12):7291–7950.Google Scholar
  • Mukherjee A, Singh M, Žaldokas A (2017) Do corporate taxes hinder innovation? J. Financial Econom. 124(1):195–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Peters RH, Taylor LA (2017) Intangible capital and the investment-Q relation. J. Financial Econom. 123(2):251–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Pritchard AC, Ferris SP (2001) Stock price reactions to securities fraud class actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper 01-009, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Rogers JL, Van Buskirk A, Zechman SLC (2011) Disclosure tone and shareholder litigation. Accounting Rev. 86(6):2155–2183.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Sampat B, Williams HL (2019) How do patents affect follow-on innovation? Evidence from the human genome. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(1):203–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Seligman J (1994) The merits do matter: A comment on Professor Grundfest’s “Disimplying private rights of action under the federal securities laws: The Commission’s authority.” Harvard Law Rev. 108(2):438–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Seligman J (2004) Rethinking private securities litigation. Univ. Cincinnati Law Rev. 73(1):95–138.Google Scholar
  • Spiess DK, Tkac PA (1997) The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: The stock market casts its vote…. Management Decision Econom. 18(7/8):545–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Susman TM (2017) Letter to the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, Re: Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017. Accessed February 23, 2018, https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/lawsuit-abuse-letter.pdf.Google Scholar
  • U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (2014) Economic consequences: The real costs of U.S. securities class action litigation. Accessed December 18, 2018, https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/research/economic-consequences-the-real-costs-of-u-s-securities-class-action-litigation.Google Scholar
  • U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (2017) Unstable foundation: Our broken class action system and how to fix it. https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/research/unstable-foundationour-broken-class-action-system-and-how-to-fix-it.Google Scholar
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2017) H.R. 720, the “Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017.” Letter to the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC. https://www.uschamber.com/letter/hr-720-the-lawsuit-abuse-reduction-act-2017.Google Scholar
  • Wang TY (2013) Corporate securities fraud: Insights from a new empirical framework. J. Law Econom. Organ. 29(3):535–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Wang TY, Winton A (2021) Industry informational interactions and corporate fraud. J. Corporate Finance 69:102024.Google Scholar
  • Wang TY, Winton A, Yu X (2010) Corporate fraud and business conditions: Evidence from IPOs. J. Finance 65(6):2255–2292.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Zingales L (2006) Competitiveness. Interim report, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, Cambridge, MA, Section 1.Google Scholar
Previous
Back to Top
Next
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.
Agree