The single-firm event studies that securities litigants use to detect the impact of a corrective disclosure on a firm's stock price have low statistical power. As a result, observed price impacts are biased against defendants and systematically overestimate the effect on firm value. We use the...

Securities litigation is a hotbed of junk science concerning market efficiency. This Article explains why and suggests a way out. In its 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, the Supreme Court endorsed the fraud on the market presumption for securities traded in an efficient market. Faced with the...

Basic economic analysis of litigation funding shows that risk neutral plaintiffs without budget constraints will not accept funding unless they are pessimistic relative to the funder. Risk aversion makes a plaintiff who shares probabilistic beliefs with the funder act observationally equivalent...

Are event studies in securities litigation reliable? Basic's fraud-on-the-market presumption sparked the wide use of event studies in securities litigation, and the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Halliburton will make event studies even more important, as litigants fight over the existence of...