Empirical Law and Economics

This article begins with a stylized history of empirical work in law and economics. It links the success of the empirical movement in law and economics with the so-called ‘credibility revolution’. The hallmark of this revolution has been a focus on research designs that helped overcome some of the impediments to empirical work in law schools. It then provides some methodological observations about a number of commonly used approaches to estimating policy effects. Next, it uses the literature on the economics of crime and criminal procedure to illustrate the ways in which many of these techniques have been used. It provides examples of fields — corporate law and economics and civil procedure — that would benefit from increased attention to modern empirical analysis and methods

The Logic and Limits of Event Studies in Securities Fraud Litigation

Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation, and the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. heightened their importance by holding that the results of event studies could be used to obtain or rebut the presumption of reliance at the class certification stage. As a result, getting event studies right has become critical. Unfortunately, courts and litigants widely misunderstand the event study methodology leading, as in Halliburton, to conclusions that differ from the stated standard. This Article provides a primer explaining the event study methodology and identifying the limitations on its use in securities fraud litigation. It begins by describing the basic function of the event study and its foundations in financial economics. The Article goes on to identify special features of securities fraud litigation that cause the statistical properties of event studies to differ from those in the scholarly context in which event studies were developed. Failure to adjust the standard approach to reflect these special features can lead an event study to produce conclusions inconsistent with the standards courts intend to apply. Using the example of the Halliburton litigation, we illustrate the use of these adjustments and demonstrate how they affect the results in that case. The Article goes on to highlight the limitations of event studies and explains how those limitations relate to the legal issues for which they are introduced. These limitations bear upon important normative questions about the role event studies should play in securities fraud litigation

Distributional impacts of cash allowances for children: A microsimulation analysis for Russia and Europe

This article analyses programmes of cash allowances for children and compares their effectiveness in combating child poverty in Russia and four European Union (EU) countries representing alternative family policy models – Sweden, Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom. Using microsimulation models, this article estimates the potential gains if the Russian system were re-designed along the policy parameters of these countries and vice versa. The results confirm that the poverty impact of the programme design is smaller than that of the level of spending. Other conditions being equal, the best distributional outcomes for children are achieved by applying the mix of universal and means-tested child benefits, such as those employed by the United Kingdom and Belgium. At the same time, the Russian design of child allowances does not appear to be less effective in terms of its impact on child poverty when transferred to European countries in place of their current arrangements

After Halliburton: Event Studies and Their Role in Federal Securities Fraud Litigation

Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II. Litigants have used event study methodology, which empirically analyzes the relationship between the disclosure of corporate information and the issuer’s stock price, to provide evidence in the evaluation of key elements of federal securities fraud, including materiality, reliance, causation, and damages. As the use of event studies grows and they increasingly serve a gatekeeping function in determining whether litigation will proceed beyond a preliminary stage, it will be critical for courts to use them correctly. This Article explores an array of considerations related to the use of event studies in securities fraud litigation. It starts by describing the basic function of the event study: to determine whether a highly unusual price movement has occurred and the traditional statistical approach to making that determination. The Article goes on to identify special features of securities fraud litigation that distinguish litigation from the scholarly context in which event studies were developed. The Article highlights the fact that the standard approach can lead to the wrong conclusion and describes the adjustments necessary to address the litigation context. We use the example of six dates in the Halliburton litigation to illustrate these points. Finally, the Article highlights the limitations of event studies – what they can and cannot prove – and explains how those limitations relate to the legal issues for which they are introduced. These limitations bear upon important normative questions about the role event studies should play in securities fraud litigation