IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v18y1997i7-8p545-561.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: the stock market casts its vote…

Author

Listed:
  • D. Katherine Spiess

    (Department of Finance and Business Economics, University of Notre Dame, IN, USA)

  • Paula A. Tkac

    (Department of Finance and Business Economics, University of Notre Dame, IN, USA)

Abstract

In December 1995, Congress overrode a presidential veto to enact the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. This legislation was aimed at curbing abuses in class action securities litigation, and providing firms with relief from frivolous lawsuits brought on the basis of stock price volatility. While the intent of lawmakers in drafting this legislation was clear, the impact of the Reform Act for shareholders of firms that are likely targets of securities litigation was uncertain. In particular, it was unclear if the cost savings from reduced litigation would outweigh the potential losses due to decreased protection from fraudulent managers, and it was also unclear if the impact of the legislation would differ for firms with different governance structures. This paper provides an economic answer to these questions by analyzing the stock market's response to the initial passage, the veto, and subsequent veto override of the Reform Act. We examine the stock price performance of firms in four industries-biotechnology, computers, electronics, and retailing-that are likely to be affected by securities litigation reform. We document a significantly negative stock price response to rumors of the presidential veto and a significantly positive response to the subsequent House override vote, indicating that investors agreed with Congress that the positive effects of the Act predominate. We also examine reactions across subsets of firms with different levels of institutional ownership, different levels of insider ownership and with different board structures, and find evidence that the positive factors outweigh any increased susceptibility to managerial fraud or inability to bring meritorious suits, even among firms with weak internal governance structures. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Katherine Spiess & Paula A. Tkac, 1997. "The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: the stock market casts its vote…," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(7-8), pages 545-561.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:18:y:1997:i:7-8:p:545-561
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1468(199711/12)18:7/8<545::AID-MDE865>3.0.CO;2-#
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Elisabeth Kempf & Oliver Spalt, 2023. "Attracting the Sharks: Corporate Innovation and Securities Class Action Lawsuits," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1805-1834, March.
    2. Amoah, Nana Y. & Tang, Alex P., 2013. "Resolution of restatement-induced lawsuits after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 41-46.
    3. Xu, Wenming, 2016. "Reforming private securities litigation in China: The stock market has already cast its vote," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 23-32.
    4. Kempf, Elisabeth & Spalt, Oliver G., 2020. "Attracting the Sharks: Corporate Innovation and Securities Class Action Lawsuits," CEPR Discussion Papers 14358, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Boone, Jeff P. & Khurana, Inder K. & Raman, K.K., 2009. "Litigation reform, accounting discretion, and the cost of equity," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 80-94.
    6. Hao, (Grace) Qing, 2011. "Securities litigation, withdrawal risk and initial public offerings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 438-456, June.
    7. Chu, Yongqiang, 2017. "Shareholder litigation, shareholder–creditor conflict, and the cost of bank loans," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 318-332.
    8. Stephen J. Choi & Karen K. Nelson & A. C. Pritchard, 2009. "The Screening Effect of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 35-68, March.
    9. Habib, Ahsan & Jiang, Haiyan & Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin & Islam, Ainul, 2014. "Litigation risk, financial reporting and auditing: A survey of the literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 145-163.
    10. Sidney Leung & Bin Srinidhi, 2006. "The Effect of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on Analyst Forecast Properties: The Impact of Firm Size and Growth Opportunities," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5‐6), pages 767-792, June.

    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:wly:mgtdec:v:18:y:1997:i:7-8:p:545-561. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.