This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Using the Event Study Methodology to Measure the Social Costs of Litigation - A Re-Examination Using Cases from the Automobile Industry

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Suresh Govindaraj (Rutgers)
Picheng Lee (Pace University)
Daniel Tinkelman (Pace University)
Abstract

In a comprehensive study extending prior research, Prince and Rubin (2002) use the event study methodology, and find negative market reaction to a sample of 15 initial filings of product liability litigation and 29 other litigation events against U.S. automakers between 1973 and 1995. They conclude that the event study methodology is a useful way to measure the costs of litigation. In contrast, after examination of a new sample of 144 initial filing events and 465 other litigation events for six major automobile firms from 1985 to 2000, and after re-examining Prince and Rubin's data, we find that the market reaction to all but the most extreme and infrequent events is generally not significant. We suggest that the event study methodology may not generally be useful to study the social costs of litigation, but may be useful for unexpected abnormal litigation events where the potential liabilities (including reputation and other losses triggered by litigation) may far exceed the legal liability reserves set up by firms. We find mixed results for the market impact of litigation against a competitor. When a product liability lawsuit is first filed against a U.S. firm, the market values of the Japanese firms significantly decline. When a Japanese firm is sued for product liability, the U.S. firms register a significant increase in market value. However, these spillover results have to be interpreted with caution because of small sample sizes and possible confounding events.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=rle
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Subscription to the journal may be required to access full texts.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Berkeley Electronic Press in its journal Review of Law & Economics.

Volume (Year): 3 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 7
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:bep:rlecon:3:2007:2:7

Note: oai:bepress.com:rle-1087
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.bepress.com/rle

Order Information:
Web: http://www.bepress.com/subscriptions.html

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: Event study methodology normal and abnormal product liability litigation normal and abnormal non-product liability litigation

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1980. "Measuring security price performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 205-258, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Viscusi, W Kip & Hersch, Joni, 1990. "The Market Response to Product Safety Litigation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 215-30, September.
  3. Dodd, Peter & Warner, Jerold B., 1983. "On corporate governance : A study of proxy contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 401-438, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 141-168, January.
  5. Hoffer, George E & Pruitt, Stephen W & Reilly, Robert J, 1988. "The Impact of Product Recalls on the Wealth of Sellers: A Reexamination," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(3), pages 663-70, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. David W. Prince & Paul H. Rubin, 2002. "The Effects of Product Liability Litigation on the Value of Firms," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 44-87, January.
  7. Jarrell, Gregg & Peltzman, Sam, 1985. "The Impact of Product Recalls on the Wealth of Sellers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 512-36, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Hertzel, Michael G & Smith, Janet Kiholm, 1993. "Industry Effects of Interfirm Lawsuits: Evidence from Pennzoil v. Texaco," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 425-44, October.
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? It is the publishers that input data about their publications, as there is no staff at RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2008-11-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.