IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v85y1995i3p436-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Private Antitrust Litigation on the Stock-Market Valuation of the Firm

Author

Listed:
  • Bizjak, John M
  • Coles, Jeffrey L

Abstract

The authors study the implications for shareholder wealth of interfirm antitrust litigation and how the costs of the dispute affect the propensity to settle. Upon filing, defendants experience significant wealth losses that are ten million dollars larger than the wealth gains of plaintiffs. Financial distress, behavioral constraints, and follow-on suits are sources of wealth leakage and influence settlement behavior. Since the threat of a monetary transfer has little power to explain either wealth effects or the likelihood of settlement, the central concern of defendants may be the potential prohibition of profitable business practices. Copyright 1995 by American Economic Association.

Suggested Citation

  • Bizjak, John M & Coles, Jeffrey L, 1995. "The Effect of Private Antitrust Litigation on the Stock-Market Valuation of the Firm," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 436-461, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:85:y:1995:i:3:p:436-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199506%2985%3A3%3C436%3ATEOPAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:jbrese:v:76:y:2017:i:c:p:145-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J Bommarito II & Tyler Soellinger & James Ming Chen, 2015. "Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making," Papers 1508.05751, arXiv.org, revised May 2017.
    3. Gianmaria Martini & Cinzia Rovesti, 2004. "Antitrust policy and price collusion. Public agencies vs delegation," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 70(2), pages 127-151.
    4. Luca Aguzzoni & Gregor Langus & Massimo Motta, 2013. "The Effect of EU Antitrust Investigations and Fines on a Firm's Valuation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 290-338, June.
    5. repec:spr:jecfin:v:41:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s12197-016-9373-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law - Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2475, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jan 2002.
    7. Fotis, Panagiotis, 2011. "Firm's damages from antitrust & abuse of dominant position investigations," MPRA Paper 32788, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Aug 2011.
    8. Michael Cichello & Douglas Lamdin, 2006. "Event Studies and the Analysis of Antitrust," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 229-245.
    9. Blau, Benjamin M. & Tew, Philip L., 2014. "Short sales and class-action lawsuits," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 79-100.
    10. repec:spr:jecfin:v:41:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s12197-016-9382-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Aharony, Joseph & Liu, Chelsea & Yawson, Alfred, 2015. "Corporate litigation and executive turnover," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 268-292.
    12. Michael Firth & Oliver M. Rui & Wenfeng Wu, 2011. "The Effects of Political Connections and State Ownership on Corporate Litigation in China," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(3), pages 573-607.
    13. James Malm & Marcin Krolikowski, 2017. "Litigation risk and financial leverage," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 41(1), pages 180-194, January.
    14. repec:eee:jbfina:v:79:y:2017:i:c:p:57-73 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Yuming Fu & Stephen Ching, 2001. "Examining Competition in Land Market: An Application of Event Study to Land Auctions in Hong Kong," Wisconsin-Madison CULER working papers 01-01, University of Wisconsin Center for Urban Land Economic Research.
    16. Utpal Bhattacharya & Neal Galpin & Bruce Haslem, 2007. "The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50, pages 625-660.
    17. Bittlingmayer, George & Hazlett, Thomas W., 2000. "DOS Kapital: Has antitrust action against Microsoft created value in the computer industry?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 329-359, March.
    18. Tim Reuter, 2012. "Private antitrust enforcement revisited: The role of private incentives to report evidence to the antitrust authority," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-04, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    19. Hüschelrath, Kai, 2008. "Is it Worth all the Trouble? The Costs and Benefits of Antitrust Enforcement," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-107, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    20. Günster, Andrea & van Dijk, Mathijs, 2016. "The impact of European antitrust policy: Evidence from the stock market," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 20-33.
    21. Lim, Terence & Lo, Andrew W. & Merton, Robert C. & Scholes, Myron S., 2006. "The Derivatives Sourcebook," Foundations and Trends(R) in Finance, now publishers, vol. 1(5–6), pages 365-572, April.
    22. repec:eee:jocaae:v:12:y:2016:i:1:p:15-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, "undated". "Event Studies and the Law--Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1021, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:85:y:1995:i:3:p:436-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael P. Albert). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.