Punitive Damages in Securities Arbitration: An Empirical Study
This article provides the first empirical analysis of punitive damages in securities arbitrations. Using a data set of over 6,800 securities arbitration awards, we find that claimants prevailed in 48.9 percent of arbitrations and that 9.1 percent of those claimant victories included a punitive damages award. The existence of a punitive damages award was associated with claims that suggested egregious misbehavior and with claims that provided higher compensatory awards. The pattern of punitive awards is more consistent with a traditional view of punitive damages that incorporates a retributive component than with a law and economics emphasis on efficient deterrence. We also report evidence that the relation between punitive and compensatory awards did not differ substantially between the securities arbitrators' data and data on juries available from periodic Civil Justice Surveys by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
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.
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.:
- Eisenberg, Theodore, et al, 1997. "The Predictability of Punitive Damages," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 623-661, June.
- Eisenberg, Theodore & Tagashira, Shoichi, 1994. "Should We Abolish Chapter 11? The Evidence from Japan," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 111-157, January.
- Heckman, James, 2013.
"Sample selection bias as a specification error,"
Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
- Joni Hersch & W. Kip Viscusi, 2004. "Punitive Damages: How Judges and Juries Perform," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36, 01.
- Stephen J. Choi & Jill E. Fisch & A. C. Pritchard, 2010. "Attorneys as Arbitrators," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 109-157, 01.
- Karpoff, Jonathan M & Lott, John R, Jr, 1999. "On the Determinants and Importance of Punitive Damage Awards," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 527-573, April.
- Leung, Siu Fai & Yu, Shihti, 1996.
"On the choice between sample selection and two-part models,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 197-229.
- Leung, S.F. & Yu, S., 1992. "On the Choice Between Sample Selection and Two-Part Models," RCER Working Papers 337, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Buntin, Melinda Beeuwkes & Zaslavsky, Alan M., 2004. "Too much ado about two-part models and transformation?: Comparing methods of modeling Medicare expenditures," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 525-542, May.
- Moller, Erik K & Pace, Nicholas M & Carroll, Stephen J, 1999. "Punitive Damages in Financial Injury Jury Verdicts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 283-339, June.
- Theodore Eisenberg & Michael Heise & Martin T. Wells, 2010. "Variability in Punitive Damages: Empirically Assessing Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 166(1), pages 5-26, March.
- Thomas A. Eaton & David B. Mustard & Susette M. Talarico, 2005. "The Effects of Seeking Punitive Damages on the Processing of Tort Claims," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 343-369, 06.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/649601. 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: (Journals Division)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.