IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/uomlwp/umichlwps-1008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should Issuers be on the Hook for Laddering? An Empirical Analysis of the IPO Market Manipulation Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Choi

    (University of California, Berkeley)

  • Adam Pritchard

    (University of Michigan Law School)

Abstract

nder Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, firms making public offerings of securities are strictly liable to investors for any material misstatements in the registration statements that accompany those offers. This strict liability regime is premised on the notion that issuers are best placed to avoid misstatements in the registration statement. Section 11 gives other potential defendants a "due diligence" defense to reflect their lesser ability to ensure the accuracy of the registration statement. The recent spate of "laddering" lawsuits alleging manipulation of the aftermarket for certain stocks issued in "hot" initial public offerings (IPOs) presents a role-reversal in that underwriters, rather than issuers, are alleged to be the principal wrongdoers. This paper compares a randomly selected sample of the defendant-issuers in the IPO laddering lawsuits with a matched sample of IPO firms not included in the laddering litigation. We find few differences between the sued firms and the match firms that would suggest that the issuers are culpable for laddering schemes. These findings call into question at least under some circumstances the deterrent value of the strict liability regime of Section 11 for corporate issuers. We propose a due diligence defense for issuers for statements in the registration statement relating to situations in which the primary wrongdoer is not the issuer.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Choi & Adam Pritchard, "undated". "Should Issuers be on the Hook for Laddering? An Empirical Analysis of the IPO Market Manipulation Litigation," University of Michigan John M. Olin Center for Law & Economics Working Paper Series umichlwps-1008, University of Michigan John M. Olin Center for Law & Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:bep:uomlwp:umichlwps-1008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=umichlwps
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bep:uomlwp:umichlwps-1008. 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: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.law.umich.edu/ .

    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.