Do the Merits Matter Less after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act?

Posted: 23 Jun 2008

See all articles by Stephen J. Choi

Stephen J. Choi

New York University School of Law

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: October 2007

Abstract

This study provides evidence on the impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995. Others have furnished evidence that the PSLRA increased the significance of merit-related factors in determining the incidence and outcomes of securities fraud class actions. This increase is consistent with two hypotheses. First, the PSLRA may have reduced solely the incidence of nuisance litigation. Second, the PSLRA may have also reduced meritorious claims where the additional costs imposed by the PSLRA made such claims unprofitable from the perspective of plaintiffs' attorneys. The study provides evidence that pre-PSLRA nonnuisance claims lacking obvious hard evidence indicia of fraud (an accounting restatement or Securities and Exchange Commission action) would have faced (1) a lower probability of suit in the post-PSLRA period and (2) a greater likelihood of receiving a dismissal or low-value settlement in the post-PSLRA period.

Suggested Citation

Choi, Stephen J., Do the Merits Matter Less after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act? (October 2007). The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 598-626, 2007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1150019 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewm014

Stephen J. Choi (Contact Author)

New York University School of Law ( email )

40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
999
PlumX Metrics