Robustness of Judicial Decisions to Valuation-Method Innovation: An Exploratory Empirical Study

Citations

WEB OF SCIENCE

4
Citations

SCOPUS

7

초록

In shareholder litigation, judges and litigants choose from a menu of valuation methods that is evolving over time. What drives demand for new valuation methods? Does valuation method choice affect a judge's final appraisal? Is a judge more likely to favor the litigant whose valuation method coincides with the judge's if the other litigant uses a different method? Using a comprehensive hand-collected sample of Delaware appraisal remedy shareholder litigation cases, we show that the distribution of judicial appraisal outcomes is insensitive to valuation methodology. Moreover, valuation method agreement between judge and plaintiff (or between judge and defendant) does not influence the judge's appraisal. In this sense, judicial valuation is robust to innovations in valuation technology. However, we find that judicial valuation method choice is contextual. The method a judge chooses depends on the fundamental attributes of the firm as well as the quality of litigants' proposed valuation estimates. We conclude that judges demand new valuation methods when the new methods are contextually more appropriate.

키워드

judicial valuationshareholder litigationlaw and financeCORPORATE-LAWEARNINGSFINANCEAPPRAISALECONOMYFIRMSRULE
제목
Robustness of Judicial Decisions to Valuation-Method Innovation: An Exploratory Empirical Study
저자
Chen, FengYee, Kenton K.Yoo, Yong Keun
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-5957.2010.02193.x
발행일
2010-11
유형
Article
저널명
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting
37
9-10
페이지
1094 ~ 1114