IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v28y2012i4p850-881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Supreme Court's Impact on Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Assessment of Tellabs

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen J. Choi
  • A. C. Pritchard

Abstract

How does Supreme Court precedent affect lower court decisions when there is asymmetric probability of appellate review? We study the impact of Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., which clarified the law of securities fraud on pleading scienter. Tellabs reversed a lenient "reasonableness" standard for pleading scienter but replaced it with a standard that is nonetheless relatively generous to plaintiffs. Would the Supreme Court's directive cause the dismissal rates in the lower courts to converge? We find that Tellabs correlates with a significantly lower dismissal rate on scienter grounds in circuits previously applying a higher preponderance standard for scienter. In contrast, we find no significant shift in the courts previously applying the lower reasonableness standard in our basic model. Overall, we conclude that Tellabs led to increased uniformity in how lower courts apply pleading standards, but its effect is muted by the asymmetry of the right to appeal. The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen J. Choi & A. C. Pritchard, 2012. "The Supreme Court's Impact on Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Assessment of Tellabs," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 850-881, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:28:y:2012:i:4:p:850-881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewr014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Bliss, Barbara A. & Partnoy, Frank & Furchtgott, Michael, 2018. "Information bundling and securities litigation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 61-84.
    2. Allen Huang & Kai Wai Hui & Reeyarn Zhiyang Li, 2019. "Federal Judge Ideology: A New Measure of Ex Ante Litigation Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 431-489, May.

    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:oup:jleorg:v:28:y:2012:i:4:p:850-881. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.