Market Reaction to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

  • Shael WOLFSON Xavier University of Louisiana, USA
  • Tarun MUKHERJEE University of New Orleans, USA

Abstract

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) virtually removed the majority of class-action jurisdiction from State to Federal Courts. We examine the market reaction to various events leading to the passage of CAFA and find that stockholders of companies likely to be affected by CAFA react positively (negatively) to the events that increase (decrease) the chances of passage. We examine the strength of this finding by testing three complementary hypotheses: one, companies susceptible to product-liability litigation display greater sensitivity to CAFA than companies exposed to contract litigation; two, the market reaction would be more positive for companies with better corporate governance and transparency to events favoring the passage of CAFA; three, because a positive market reaction implies that stockholders favor Federal Courts over State Courts as a venue, they would react negatively when a class-action is remanded from a  State to a Federal Court.  Our results support these hypotheses, indicating that stockholders prefer Federal Courts to State Courts for class-action jurisdiction.

References

[1] Berger, P., E. Ofek, and D., Yermack. 1997. Managerial Entrenchment and Capital Structure Decisions, The Journal of Finance 52: 1411-1438.
[2] Bhagat, S., J., Bizjak, and J.L., Coles. 1998. The Shareholder Wealth Implications of Corporate Lawsuits, Financial Management 27: 5-27.
[3] Binder, J.J. 1985. Measuring the Effects of Regulation with Stock Market Data, Rand Journal of Economics 16: 167-183.
[4] Binder, J.J. 1985. On the Use of the Multivariate Regression Model in Event Studies, Journal of Accounting Research 23: 370-383.
[5] Brown, J., D., Cummins, C., Lewis, and R., Wei. 2004. An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Impact of the Terrorism Reinsurance Act, Journal of Monetary Economics 51: 861-898.
[6] Carhart, Mark, M. 1997. On Persistence In Mutual Fund Performance, Journal of Finance 52: 57-82.
[7] Denis, D., and J., McConnell 2003. ‘2003, International Corporate Governance,’ Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38: 1-36.
[8] Eisenberg, T., S., Sundgren, and M., Wells. 1998. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms, Journal of Financial Economics 48 (1): 35-54.
[9] Fama, E.F., and K.R., French. 1993. Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3-56.
[10] Gillan, S. 2006. Recent Developments in Corporate Governance: An Overview, Journal of Corporate Finance 12: 381-402.
[11] Haslem, B. 2005. Managerial Opportunism during Corporate Litigation, The Journal of Finance 4: 2013-2041.
[12] Jensen, M. 1986); ‘Agency Cost of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers, American Economic Review 76: 323-329.
[13] Rechner, P., and D.R., Dalton. 1991. CEO Duality and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis, Strategic Management Journal 12: 155-160.
[14] Rosenstein, S., and J., Wyatt 1991. Outside Directors, Board Independence, and Shareholder Wealth,’ Journal of Financial Economics 26: 175-191.
[15] Rosenstein, S., and J., Wyatt 1997. Inside Directors, Board Effectiveness, and Shareholder Wealth, Journal of Financial Economics 44: 229-250.
[16] Sherman, E. 2006. Class Actions in the Gulf South and Beyond: Class Actions After the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 80 Tulane Law Review 1593.
[17] Shivdasani, A., and D., Yermack. 1999. CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members: An Empirical Analysis, The Journal of Finance 54: 1829-1853.
[18] Yermack, D. 1999. Higher Market Valuation of Companies With a Small Board of Directors, Journal of Financial Economics 40: 185-211.
[19] Zellner, A. 1962. An efficient method of estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regression and Tests of Aggregation Bias, Journal of the American Statistical Association 57: 348-368.
**’Legislative Histories and Intent Research Consulting. ‘The Legislative History of S. 5, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (2005) The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,’
Published
2017-05-14
How to Cite
WOLFSON, Shael; MUKHERJEE, Tarun. Market Reaction to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 8, p. 2218-2235, may 2017. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/1031>. Date accessed: 14 apr. 2024.