法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响研究

Research on the Impact of Legal Litigation on the Risk of Stock Price Collapse

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

欧登

导师:

卢燕平

导师单位:

经济学院(数字经济学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

法律诉讼;股价崩盘;财务风险;经营风险

摘要:

党的二十大报告强调,要加强和完善现代金融监管,强化金融稳定保障体系,依法将各类金融活动全部纳入监管,守住不发生系统性风险底线。伴随我国法治化进程深化,司法诉讼逐步成为市场经济活动中解决纠纷的主要途径。然而,近年来资本市场股价异常波动与法律诉讼频发相互交织,企业涉诉不仅可能削弱市场信心,其引发的风险预期更易通过投资者行为传导至股市,加剧股价崩盘风险隐患。基于此,本文拟从理论逻辑与实证检验两个层面,系统研究法律诉讼事件对上市公司股价崩盘风险的潜在影响,旨在为法治化背景下的金融监管优化提供理论支撑。首先,本文回顾了法律诉讼和股价崩盘风险相关文献。根据相关理论形成法律诉讼影响股价崩盘风险的路径机制,发现法律诉讼主要通过负面报道、财务风险、经营风险三个途径影响股价崩盘。由此提出本文研究假说:法律诉讼与股价崩盘风险呈正相关关系;法律诉讼通过增加负面报道提高股价崩盘风险;法律诉讼通过提高财务风险提高股价崩盘风险;法律诉讼通过提高经营风险提高股价崩盘风险。然后,本文采用WIND数据库和CSMAR国泰安数据库中的数据,选取2009至2022年A股1303家上市企业为样本对法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响及作用机制进行实证研究。首先构建法律诉讼与股价崩盘风险的固定效应模型,模型中同时控制公司的财务特征及经营特征等因素,以研究法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响。然后在稳健性检验中,替换解释变量、替换被解释变量,工具变量法以及倾向得分匹配进行检验。其次,对负面报道、财务风向和经营风险三个层面分别做了机制检验。最后进一步讨论了法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险影响不同融资约束、不同法律环境和不同管理者短视程度下可能存在的异质性。研究得出以下结论:第一,法律诉讼会提高股价崩盘风险。第二,从机制分析方面,法律诉讼主要从负面报道、财务风险、经营风险三方面来影响企业的股价崩盘风险。第三,异质性分析表明,相较于融资约束低的情况,融资约束越高时法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的正向影响效应越显著;相较于法律环境强的情况,法律环境弱时法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的正向影响效应越显著;管理者短视程度越高,法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的正向影响效应越显著。最后,针对本文研究结论,提出相应的政策建议:第一,政府需完善法律诉讼信息披露机制并加强媒体监管,以维护市场稳定。第二,企业应构建法律风险防控体系并提升危机应对能力,保障经营与股价韧性。第三,金融市场需优化风险对冲工具与投资者教育,推动理性定价与公平交易。

参考文献:

1.毕超.诉讼风险如何影响企业费用粘性?——来自中国上市公司的证据[J].会计研究,2022(12):119-137.2.曹丰、张雪燕.投机氛围与股价崩盘风险[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2021(05):16–27+158–159.3.曹琼等.盈余管理、审计费用与审计意见[J].审计研究,2013(06):76-83.4.陈思琪.关联担保的债务风险转移[J].中国工业经济,2017(8):120-137.5.戴亦一等.企业慈善捐赠:诉讼风险下的自我救赎[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016(02):122-131.6.单华军.内部控制、公司违规与监管绩效改进——来自2007—2008年深市上市公司的经验证据[J].中国工业经济,2010(11):140-148.7.丁一等.公司诉讼在治理机制下的企业战略调整分析[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2020,53(2):61-66.8.冯丽艳等.社会责任对企业风险的影响效应——基于我国经济环境的分析[J].南开管理评论,2016(06):141-154.9.冯延超、梁莱歆.上市公司法律风险、审计收费及非标准审计意见——来自中国上市公司的经验证据[J].审计研究,2010(3):75-81.10.傅超、吉利.诉讼风险与公司慈善捐赠——基于“声誉保险”视角的解释[J].南开管理评论,2017(02):108-121.11.高敬忠等.公司诉讼风险与管理层盈余预告披露方式选择——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据[J].经济与管理研究,2011,222(05):102-112.12.黄宏斌、尚文华.审计师性别、审计质量与股价崩盘风险[J].中央财经大学学报,2019(01):80-97.13.胡长冬、姚曦.对外担保与股价同步性[J].天津商务职业学院学报,2024,12(2):11-22.14.胡楠等.管理者短视主义影响企业长期投资吗?——基于文本分析和机器学习[J].管理世界,2021,37(05):139-156+11+19-21.15.蒋为等.媒体负面报道、印象管理与策略性环境治理[J].会计研究,2023(11):150-162.16.纪亚方等.公司诉讼与审计收费——基于经营风险的中介效应[J].管理学刊,2020(03):48-60.17.江轩宇.税收征管、税收激进与股价崩盘风险[J].南开管理评论,2013,16(5):152-160.18.江轩宇、许年行.企业过度投资与股价崩盘风险[J].金融研究,2015(08):141-158.19.李海丽、沈哲.中小投资者法律保护与资本市场稳定——来自投服中心持股行权试点的经验证据[J].统计研究,2024,41(03):129-139.20.李倩茹、翟华云.管理者短视主义会影响企业数字化转型吗?[J].财务研究,2022(04):92-104.21.李晓玲、赖亚文.法律诉讼事件与企业商业信用融资[J].东南学术,2019(04):140-149.22.李小荣等.债务诉讼与股价崩盘风险[J].中国会计评论,2014,12(2):133-158.23.李小荣等.同行公司股价崩盘风险影响公司投资行为吗?[J].投资研究,2017,36(12):97-118.24.李旎等.公司战略异质性与股价同步性[J].会计与经济研究,2021,35(3):72-88.25.林斌等.内部控制、公司诉讼与债务契约——基于A股市场的经验研究[J].审计与经济研究,2015(03):3-11.26.刘宝华等.社会信任与股价崩盘风险[J].财贸经济,2016(09):53-66.27.刘春、孙亮.税收征管能降低股价暴跌风险吗?[J].金融研究,2015(08):159-174.28.刘慧等.诉讼风险、法律环境与企业债务融资成本[J].南开管理评论,2016(05):16-27.29.刘军岭等.民事诉讼、负债融资与公司治理[J].金融论坛,2022(02):41-50.30.刘启亮等.媒体负面报道、诉讼风险与审计费用[J].会计研究,2014(06):81-88+97.31.刘杉、李云.媒体负面报道、会计信息质量与股价信息含量[J].商业会计,2023(1):17-23.32.刘微芳、苏三妹.内部控制、诉讼风险与债务成本——基于我国A股上市公司的实证证据[J].福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,32(05):49-56.33.刘颖斐、张小虎.企业诉讼风险与审计收费——基于关键审计事项披露视角[J].审计与经济研究,2019(06):33-45.34.鲁桂华、潘柳芸.高管学术经历影响股价崩盘风险吗?[J].管理评论,2021,33(04):259-270.35.陆静、马杨.中国上市银行法律风险案件披露的市场反应[J].金融论坛,2012(3):60-66.36.毛新述、孟杰.内部控制与诉讼风险[J].管理世界,2013(11):155-165.37.潘越等.公司诉讼风险、司法地方保护主义与企业创新[J].经济研究,2015(03):131-145.38.潘越等.私心的善意:基于台风中企业慈善捐赠行为的新证据[J].中国工业经济,2017(05):133-151.39.钱爱民、郁智.诉讼风险、产权性质与盈余管理[J].证券市场导报,2017(07):16-24.40.屈文洲等.信息不对称、融资约束与投资—现金流敏感性——基于市场微观结构理论的实证研究[J].经济研究,2011,46(6):105-117.41.权小锋等.企业社会责任与股价崩盘风险:“价值利器”或“自利工具”?[J].经济研究,2016,50(11):49-64.42.邵毅平、李文贵.诉讼风险、审计师选择与盈余质量[J].财经论丛,2018(05):58-65.43.沈华玉等.控股股东控制权与股价崩盘风险:“利益协同”还是“隧道”效应?[J].经济管理,2017,39(04):65-83.44.沈洪涛等.社会责任报告及鉴证能否传递有效信号?——基于企业声誉理论的分析[J].审计研究,2011(04):87-93.45.沈萍、刘子嘉.市场化水平、诉讼风险与企业绩效[J].投资研究,2020(12):136-153.46.司海平等.企业诉讼、信号传递与融资约束[J].中国经济问题,2021(06):156-168.47.田粟源、王田力.同行公司股价崩盘风险影响公司投资行为吗?[J].投资研究,2017,36(12):97-118.48.万东灿.审计收费与股价崩盘风险[J].审计研究,2015(06):85-93.49.王兵等.股票市场开放能缓解民营企业融资约束吗——基于“深港通”开通的证据[J].金融经济学研究,2021,36(3):107-123.50.王德宏等.董事海外背景能否降低股价崩盘风险?——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据[J].金融评论,2018,10(03):52-69+123-124.51.王化成等.投资者保护与股价崩盘风险[J].财贸经济,2014(10):73-82.52.王化成等.监督还是掏空:大股东持股比例与股价崩盘风险[J].管理世界,2015(02):45-57+187.53.王菁华、毕超.诉讼风险如何影响企业费用粘性?——来自中国上市公司的证据[J].会计研究,2022(12):119-137.54.王彦超、陈思琪.关联担保的债务风险转移[J].中国工业经济,2017(8):120-137.55.王彦超等.诉讼风险、法制环境与债务成本[J].会计研究,2016(06):30-37+94.56.王彦超等.市场环境、民事诉讼与盈余管理[J].中国会计评论,2008(01):21-40.57.王竹泉等.经营风险与营运资金融资决策[J].会计研究,2017(5):60-67.58.王宜峰、李炎霞.股价崩盘风险、股价信息含量与企业金融化[J].武汉金融,2021(8):45-53.59.王宜峰等.股价崩盘风险、融资约束与企业投资[J].投资研究,2018,37(10):103-121.60.魏志华等.金融生态环境与企业融资约束——基于中国上市公司的实证研究[J].会计研究,2014(5):73-80.61.吴伟荣、李晶晶.注册会计师超长累计任期与股价崩盘风险研究[J].管理学报,2019,16(07):1097-1106.62.吴溪等.证券虚假陈述民事诉讼的前置程序取消与股票市场反应[J].财经研究,2024,50(3):138-153.63.夏常源、贾凡胜.控股股东股权质押与股价崩盘风险:“实际伤害”还是“情绪宣泄”?[J].南开管理评论,2019,22(05):165-177.64.谢德仁等.控股股东股权质押是潜在的“地雷”吗?基于股价崩盘风险视角的研究[J].管理世界,2016(05):128-140+188.65.谢红军等.官司、声誉与上市企业更名[J].经济研究,2017,52(01):165-180.66.熊家财、桂荷发.政治关联与企业创新:来自PSM的证据[J].科研管理,2020,41(07):11-19.67.熊家财、杨来峰.地区博彩文化会影响股价崩盘风险吗?来自彩票销售的经验证据[J].审计与经济研究,2023,38(01):75-83.68.许志伟等.融资约束与中国经济波动——新凯恩斯主义框架内的动态分析[J].经济学(季刊),2011,10(01):83-110.69.徐细雄等.儒家文化与股价崩盘风险[J].会计研究,2020(04):143–150.70.许荣等.媒体报道如何影响并购重组知情交易:合流还是监督?[J].证券市场导报,2024(07):28-40.71.叶斌、熊秉元.企业合同纠纷案件中的司法地方保护主义[J].财经问题研究,2020(11):22-31.72.叶康涛等.内部控制信息披露能够降低股价崩盘风险吗?[J].金融研究,2015(2):192-206.73.伊志宏等.企业对外担保与股价崩盘风险——基于A股上市公司的经验证据[J].会计研究,2021(04):157-177.74.于传荣等.上市公司高管因股价崩盘风险受到惩罚了吗?[J].经济管理,2017,39(12):136-156.75.俞国栋等.法律诉讼与公司财务政策[J].证券市场导报,2015(12):27-35.76.岳晓利.我国上市公司频繁并购的风险探析——以蓝色光标为例[J].财会月刊,2017(16):96-101.77.杨棉之等.股价崩盘风险与公司资本成本——基于中国 A 股上市公司的经验证据[J].现代财经—天津财经大学学报,2015(12):41-51.78.姚禄仕、林蕾.过度投资与股价崩盘风险——基于经营与财务风险的路径影响[J].华东经济管理,2021,35(10):101-109.79.尹林辉、朱晨蝶.法律诉讼、政治关联与股价崩盘风险[J].杭州电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2021,17(6):33-41.80.张俊民等.媒体负面报道与商誉减值及时性——基于治理效应与市场压力的实证检验[J].财经论丛,2022(5):79-88.81.张路等.管理者能力与资本市场稳定[J].金融研究,2021(9):188-206.82.张维迎、柯荣住.诉讼过程中的逆向选择及其解释——以契约纠纷的基层法院判决书为例的经验研究[J].中国社会科学,2002(02):31-43+205-206.83.张昕.中国亏损上市公司第四季度盈余管理的实证研究[J].会计研究,2008(04):25-32+93.84.张烨宇等.地方官员更替、制度环境与股价崩盘风险[J].投资研究,2020,39(01):105-122.85.赵放等.审计委员会中会计独董的同城特征与股价崩盘风险[J].审计研究,2017(05):104-112.86.赵康生等.大股东持股与公司诉讼风险——基于中国上市公司的实证分析[J].外国经济与管理,2017(01):84-95.87.赵彦锋.企业诉讼风险与审计师选择研究[J].经济经纬,2021,38(4):103-112.88.周开国等.被诉讼事件披露、股票市场反应与盈余管理[J].上海金融,2015(09):73-80+14.89.祝继高.会计稳健性与债权人利益保护——基于银行与上市公司关于贷款的法律诉讼的研究[J].会计研究,2011(05):50-57+96.90.邹萍.股价崩盘风险、信息透明度与资本结构偏离度——基于沪深A股数据的实证分析[J].科学决策,2013(06):41-54.91.李伟等.股价崩盘风险与审计调整[J].审计研究,2020(6):106-113.92.罗进辉、杜兴强.媒体报道、制度环境与股价崩盘风险[J].会计研究,2014(9):53-59.93.黄炯.管理者短视都是负面效应吗?——基于股价波动的考察[J].财会通讯,2024(18):46-50.94.Allen et al, 2005, Law, finance, and economic growth in China, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.77, pp.57-116.95.Al Mamun et al, 2020, Powerful CEOs and stock price crash risk, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.62: 101582.96.Anderson, 2000, Taking stock in China: Company disclosure and information in China's stock markets, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol.88(6), pp1919-1952.97.Andreou et al, 2017, CEO age and stock price crash risk, Review of Finance, Vol.21, pp1287-1325.98.Arena and Julio, 2015, The effects of securities class action litigation on corporate liquidity and investment policy, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.50, pp251-275.99.Ben et al, 2020, Corporate relationship spending and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China's anti-corruption campaign, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol.113:105758.100.Black, 1976, Noise, Journal of Finance, Vol.41, pp529-542.101.Callen and Fang, 2015, Religion and stock price crash risk, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.50, pp169–195.102.Chen et al, 2001, Forecasting crashes: Trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.61(3), pp345-381.103.Chen et al, 2021, CEO early-life disaster experience and stock price crash risk, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.68:101928.104.Chen et al, 2018, Does crackdown on corruption reduce stock price crash risk? Evidence from China, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.51, pp125-141.105.Clemenz and Gugler, 2000, Macroeconomic development and civil litigation, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.23, pp215-230.106.Donelson et al, 2012, The timeliness of bad earnings news and litigation risk, The Accounting Review, Vol.87, pp1967-1991.107.DuCharme et al, 2004, Earnings management, stock issues and shareholder lawsuits, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.71, pp27-49.108.Engelmann and Cornell, 1988, Measuring the cost of corporate litigation: Five case studies, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.17, pp377-399.109.Filippo, 2021, Roadblock to innovation: The role of patent litigation in corporate R&D, Management Science. Vol.71, pp23-42.110.Hong and Stein, 2003, Differences of opinion, short-sales constraints, and market crashes, Review of Financial Studies, Vol.16, pp487-525.111.Hutton et al, 2009, Opaque financial reports, R², and crash risk, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.94, pp67-86.112.Jin and Myers, 2006, R² around the world: New theory and new tests, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.79, pp257-292.113.Kim et al, 2011, Corporate tax avoidance and stock price crash risk: Firm-level analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.100, pp639-662.114.Kim et al, 2011, CFOs versus CEOs: Equity incentives and crashes, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.101, pp713-730.115.Kim et al, 2016, CEO overconfidence and stock price crash risk, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.33, pp1720-1749.116.Kim and Zhang, 2016, Accounting conservatism and stock price crash risk: Firm-level evidence, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.33, pp412-441.117.Kim and Zhang, 2014, Financial reporting opacity and expected crash risk: Evidence from implied volatility smirks, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.31, pp851-875.118.Kim et al, 2014, Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol.43, pp1-13.119.Kong et al, 2021, Explain or conceal? Causal language intensity in annual report and stock price crash risk. Economic Modelling, Vol.94, pp715-725.120.Li and Chan, 2016, Communist party control and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. Economics Letters, Vol.141, pp5-7.121.Malm and Kanuri, 2020, Litigation risk and payout policy, Managerial Finance, Vol.46, pp24-33122.Massin and Brothers, 1994, Surviving the litigious '90s: What corporate officers and directors can do to minimize the risks of lawsuits, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol.59, pp27-34.123.Mctier and Wald, 2011, The causes and consequences of securities class action litigation, Social Science Electronic Publishing, Vol.17, pp649-665.124.Nguyen et al, 2020, Shareholder litigation rights and capital structure decisions, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.62: 101601.125.Peng, 2022, Corporate financing constraints and stock price crash risk based on overinvestment perspective, BCP Social Sciences & Humanities, Vol.16, pp630-636.126.Pindyck, 1984, Uncertainty in the theory of renewable resource markets, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.51, pp289-303.127.Pukthuanthong et al, 2017, Litigation risk and institutional monitoring, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.45, pp342-359.128.Xu and Chan, 2023, Managers’ short-sightedness, institutional environment and financing risks, International Journal of Advanced Business Studies, Vol.36, pp56-72.129.Seetharaman et al, 2002, Litigation risk and audit fees: Evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.33, pp91-115.130.Shen et al, 2016, Empirical research on corporate governance in China: A review and new directions for the future, Management and Organization Review, Vol.12, pp41-73.

学科:

应用经济学

提交日期

2025-05-27

引用参考

欧登. 法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2025.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响研究
  • dc.title
  • Research on the Impact of Legal Litigation on the Risk of Stock Price Collapse
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20220202000049
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 欧登
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 经济学院(数字经济学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 经济学硕士学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2025
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 应用经济学
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 卢燕平
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济学院(数字经济学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 法律诉讼,股价崩盘,财务风险,经营风险
  • dc.subject
  • Legal litigation;stock price collapse;financial risk;operational risk
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 党的二十大报告强调,要加强和完善现代金融监管,强化金融稳定保障体系,依法将各类金融活动全部纳入监管,守住不发生系统性风险底线。伴随我国法治化进程深化,司法诉讼逐步成为市场经济活动中解决纠纷的主要途径。然而,近年来资本市场股价异常波动与法律诉讼频发相互交织,企业涉诉不仅可能削弱市场信心,其引发的风险预期更易通过投资者行为传导至股市,加剧股价崩盘风险隐患。基于此,本文拟从理论逻辑与实证检验两个层面,系统研究法律诉讼事件对上市公司股价崩盘风险的潜在影响,旨在为法治化背景下的金融监管优化提供理论支撑。首先,本文回顾了法律诉讼和股价崩盘风险相关文献。根据相关理论形成法律诉讼影响股价崩盘风险的路径机制,发现法律诉讼主要通过负面报道、财务风险、经营风险三个途径影响股价崩盘。由此提出本文研究假说:法律诉讼与股价崩盘风险呈正相关关系;法律诉讼通过增加负面报道提高股价崩盘风险;法律诉讼通过提高财务风险提高股价崩盘风险;法律诉讼通过提高经营风险提高股价崩盘风险。然后,本文采用WIND数据库和CSMAR国泰安数据库中的数据,选取2009至2022年A股1303家上市企业为样本对法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响及作用机制进行实证研究。首先构建法律诉讼与股价崩盘风险的固定效应模型,模型中同时控制公司的财务特征及经营特征等因素,以研究法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的影响。然后在稳健性检验中,替换解释变量、替换被解释变量,工具变量法以及倾向得分匹配进行检验。其次,对负面报道、财务风向和经营风险三个层面分别做了机制检验。最后进一步讨论了法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险影响不同融资约束、不同法律环境和不同管理者短视程度下可能存在的异质性。研究得出以下结论:第一,法律诉讼会提高股价崩盘风险。第二,从机制分析方面,法律诉讼主要从负面报道、财务风险、经营风险三方面来影响企业的股价崩盘风险。第三,异质性分析表明,相较于融资约束低的情况,融资约束越高时法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的正向影响效应越显著;相较于法律环境强的情况,法律环境弱时法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的正向影响效应越显著;管理者短视程度越高,法律诉讼对股价崩盘风险的正向影响效应越显著。最后,针对本文研究结论,提出相应的政策建议:第一,政府需完善法律诉讼信息披露机制并加强媒体监管,以维护市场稳定。第二,企业应构建法律风险防控体系并提升危机应对能力,保障经营与股价韧性。第三,金融市场需优化风险对冲工具与投资者教育,推动理性定价与公平交易。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China emphasizes the need to strengthen and improve modern financial regulation, enhance the financial stability guarantee system, and legally regulate all types of financial activities to safeguard the bottom line of preventing systemic risks. With the deepening of the rule of law in China, judicial litigation has gradually become the main way to resolve disputes in market economy activities. However, in recent years, abnormal fluctuations in stock prices in the capital market have been intertwined with frequent legal lawsuits. Companies involved in lawsuits may not only weaken market confidence, but also trigger risk expectations that are more easily transmitted to the stock market through investor behavior, exacerbating the risk of stock price collapse. Based on this, this article intends to systematically study the potential impact of legal litigation events on the risk of stock price collapse of listed companies from the perspectives of theoretical logic and empirical testing, aiming to provide theoretical support for optimizing financial regulation under the background of rule of law.Firstly, this article reviews literature related to legal litigation and the risk of stock price collapse. According to relevant theories, the path mechanism of how legal litigation affects the risk of stock price collapse is formed. It is found that legal litigation mainly affects stock price collapse through three channels: negative reporting, financial risk, and operational risk. The research hypothesis proposed in this article is that there is a positive correlation between legal litigation and the risk of stock price collapse; Legal litigation increases the risk of stock price collapse by increasing negative coverage; Legal litigation increases the risk of stock price collapse by raising financial risks; Legal litigation increases the risk of stock price collapse by raising operational risks.Then, this article uses data from WIND database and CSMAR Guotai An database, selecting a sample of 37743 observations from A-share listed companies from 2009 to 2022 to empirically study the impact and mechanism of legal litigation on stock price collapse risk. Firstly, a fixed effects model is constructed to investigate the impact of legal litigation on the risk of stock price collapse, which simultaneously controls for factors such as financial and operational characteristics of the company. Then, in the robustness test, the explanatory variable and the dependent variable are replaced, and the instrumental variable method and propensity score matching are used for testing. Secondly, mechanism tests were conducted on three levels: negative reports, financial trends, and operational risks. Finally, further discussions were held on the potential heterogeneity of the impact of legal litigation on the risk of stock price collapse under different financing constraints, legal environments, and levels of managerial shortsightedness.The research concludes that firstly, legal litigation increases the risk of stock price collapse. Secondly, from the perspective of mechanism analysis, legal litigation mainly affects the risk of stock price collapse of enterprises from three aspects: negative reports, financial risks, and operational risks. Thirdly, heterogeneity analysis indicates that compared to situations with low financing constraints, the higher the financing constraints, the more significant the positive impact of legal litigation on the risk of stock price collapse; Compared to situations where the legal environment is strong, the positive impact of legal litigation on the risk of stock price collapse becomes more significant when the legal environment is weak; The higher the degree of short sightedness of managers, the more significant the positive impact of legal litigation on the risk of stock price collapse.Finally, in response to the research findings of this article, corresponding policy recommendations are proposed: firstly, the government needs to improve the mechanism for disclosing legal litigation information and strengthen media supervision to maintain market stability. Secondly, enterprises should establish a legal risk prevention and control system and enhance their crisis response capabilities to ensure operational and stock price resilience. Thirdly, the financial market needs to optimize risk hedging tools and investor education to promote rational pricing and fair trading.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-05-27
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2025-05-15
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 1.毕超.诉讼风险如何影响企业费用粘性?——来自中国上市公司的证据[J].会计研究,2022(12):119-137.2.曹丰、张雪燕.投机氛围与股价崩盘风险[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2021(05):16–27+158–159.3.曹琼等.盈余管理、审计费用与审计意见[J].审计研究,2013(06):76-83.4.陈思琪.关联担保的债务风险转移[J].中国工业经济,2017(8):120-137.5.戴亦一等.企业慈善捐赠:诉讼风险下的自我救赎[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016(02):122-131.6.单华军.内部控制、公司违规与监管绩效改进——来自2007—2008年深市上市公司的经验证据[J].中国工业经济,2010(11):140-148.7.丁一等.公司诉讼在治理机制下的企业战略调整分析[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2020,53(2):61-66.8.冯丽艳等.社会责任对企业风险的影响效应——基于我国经济环境的分析[J].南开管理评论,2016(06):141-154.9.冯延超、梁莱歆.上市公司法律风险、审计收费及非标准审计意见——来自中国上市公司的经验证据[J].审计研究,2010(3):75-81.10.傅超、吉利.诉讼风险与公司慈善捐赠——基于“声誉保险”视角的解释[J].南开管理评论,2017(02):108-121.11.高敬忠等.公司诉讼风险与管理层盈余预告披露方式选择——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据[J].经济与管理研究,2011,222(05):102-112.12.黄宏斌、尚文华.审计师性别、审计质量与股价崩盘风险[J].中央财经大学学报,2019(01):80-97.13.胡长冬、姚曦.对外担保与股价同步性[J].天津商务职业学院学报,2024,12(2):11-22.14.胡楠等.管理者短视主义影响企业长期投资吗?——基于文本分析和机器学习[J].管理世界,2021,37(05):139-156+11+19-21.15.蒋为等.媒体负面报道、印象管理与策略性环境治理[J].会计研究,2023(11):150-162.16.纪亚方等.公司诉讼与审计收费——基于经营风险的中介效应[J].管理学刊,2020(03):48-60.17.江轩宇.税收征管、税收激进与股价崩盘风险[J].南开管理评论,2013,16(5):152-160.18.江轩宇、许年行.企业过度投资与股价崩盘风险[J].金融研究,2015(08):141-158.19.李海丽、沈哲.中小投资者法律保护与资本市场稳定——来自投服中心持股行权试点的经验证据[J].统计研究,2024,41(03):129-139.20.李倩茹、翟华云.管理者短视主义会影响企业数字化转型吗?[J].财务研究,2022(04):92-104.21.李晓玲、赖亚文.法律诉讼事件与企业商业信用融资[J].东南学术,2019(04):140-149.22.李小荣等.债务诉讼与股价崩盘风险[J].中国会计评论,2014,12(2):133-158.23.李小荣等.同行公司股价崩盘风险影响公司投资行为吗?[J].投资研究,2017,36(12):97-118.24.李旎等.公司战略异质性与股价同步性[J].会计与经济研究,2021,35(3):72-88.25.林斌等.内部控制、公司诉讼与债务契约——基于A股市场的经验研究[J].审计与经济研究,2015(03):3-11.26.刘宝华等.社会信任与股价崩盘风险[J].财贸经济,2016(09):53-66.27.刘春、孙亮.税收征管能降低股价暴跌风险吗?[J].金融研究,2015(08):159-174.28.刘慧等.诉讼风险、法律环境与企业债务融资成本[J].南开管理评论,2016(05):16-27.29.刘军岭等.民事诉讼、负债融资与公司治理[J].金融论坛,2022(02):41-50.30.刘启亮等.媒体负面报道、诉讼风险与审计费用[J].会计研究,2014(06):81-88+97.31.刘杉、李云.媒体负面报道、会计信息质量与股价信息含量[J].商业会计,2023(1):17-23.32.刘微芳、苏三妹.内部控制、诉讼风险与债务成本——基于我国A股上市公司的实证证据[J].福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,32(05):49-56.33.刘颖斐、张小虎.企业诉讼风险与审计收费——基于关键审计事项披露视角[J].审计与经济研究,2019(06):33-45.34.鲁桂华、潘柳芸.高管学术经历影响股价崩盘风险吗?[J].管理评论,2021,33(04):259-270.35.陆静、马杨.中国上市银行法律风险案件披露的市场反应[J].金融论坛,2012(3):60-66.36.毛新述、孟杰.内部控制与诉讼风险[J].管理世界,2013(11):155-165.37.潘越等.公司诉讼风险、司法地方保护主义与企业创新[J].经济研究,2015(03):131-145.38.潘越等.私心的善意:基于台风中企业慈善捐赠行为的新证据[J].中国工业经济,2017(05):133-151.39.钱爱民、郁智.诉讼风险、产权性质与盈余管理[J].证券市场导报,2017(07):16-24.40.屈文洲等.信息不对称、融资约束与投资—现金流敏感性——基于市场微观结构理论的实证研究[J].经济研究,2011,46(6):105-117.41.权小锋等.企业社会责任与股价崩盘风险:“价值利器”或“自利工具”?[J].经济研究,2016,50(11):49-64.42.邵毅平、李文贵.诉讼风险、审计师选择与盈余质量[J].财经论丛,2018(05):58-65.43.沈华玉等.控股股东控制权与股价崩盘风险:“利益协同”还是“隧道”效应?[J].经济管理,2017,39(04):65-83.44.沈洪涛等.社会责任报告及鉴证能否传递有效信号?——基于企业声誉理论的分析[J].审计研究,2011(04):87-93.45.沈萍、刘子嘉.市场化水平、诉讼风险与企业绩效[J].投资研究,2020(12):136-153.46.司海平等.企业诉讼、信号传递与融资约束[J].中国经济问题,2021(06):156-168.47.田粟源、王田力.同行公司股价崩盘风险影响公司投资行为吗?[J].投资研究,2017,36(12):97-118.48.万东灿.审计收费与股价崩盘风险[J].审计研究,2015(06):85-93.49.王兵等.股票市场开放能缓解民营企业融资约束吗——基于“深港通”开通的证据[J].金融经济学研究,2021,36(3):107-123.50.王德宏等.董事海外背景能否降低股价崩盘风险?——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据[J].金融评论,2018,10(03):52-69+123-124.51.王化成等.投资者保护与股价崩盘风险[J].财贸经济,2014(10):73-82.52.王化成等.监督还是掏空:大股东持股比例与股价崩盘风险[J].管理世界,2015(02):45-57+187.53.王菁华、毕超.诉讼风险如何影响企业费用粘性?——来自中国上市公司的证据[J].会计研究,2022(12):119-137.54.王彦超、陈思琪.关联担保的债务风险转移[J].中国工业经济,2017(8):120-137.55.王彦超等.诉讼风险、法制环境与债务成本[J].会计研究,2016(06):30-37+94.56.王彦超等.市场环境、民事诉讼与盈余管理[J].中国会计评论,2008(01):21-40.57.王竹泉等.经营风险与营运资金融资决策[J].会计研究,2017(5):60-67.58.王宜峰、李炎霞.股价崩盘风险、股价信息含量与企业金融化[J].武汉金融,2021(8):45-53.59.王宜峰等.股价崩盘风险、融资约束与企业投资[J].投资研究,2018,37(10):103-121.60.魏志华等.金融生态环境与企业融资约束——基于中国上市公司的实证研究[J].会计研究,2014(5):73-80.61.吴伟荣、李晶晶.注册会计师超长累计任期与股价崩盘风险研究[J].管理学报,2019,16(07):1097-1106.62.吴溪等.证券虚假陈述民事诉讼的前置程序取消与股票市场反应[J].财经研究,2024,50(3):138-153.63.夏常源、贾凡胜.控股股东股权质押与股价崩盘风险:“实际伤害”还是“情绪宣泄”?[J].南开管理评论,2019,22(05):165-177.64.谢德仁等.控股股东股权质押是潜在的“地雷”吗?基于股价崩盘风险视角的研究[J].管理世界,2016(05):128-140+188.65.谢红军等.官司、声誉与上市企业更名[J].经济研究,2017,52(01):165-180.66.熊家财、桂荷发.政治关联与企业创新:来自PSM的证据[J].科研管理,2020,41(07):11-19.67.熊家财、杨来峰.地区博彩文化会影响股价崩盘风险吗?来自彩票销售的经验证据[J].审计与经济研究,2023,38(01):75-83.68.许志伟等.融资约束与中国经济波动——新凯恩斯主义框架内的动态分析[J].经济学(季刊),2011,10(01):83-110.69.徐细雄等.儒家文化与股价崩盘风险[J].会计研究,2020(04):143–150.70.许荣等.媒体报道如何影响并购重组知情交易:合流还是监督?[J].证券市场导报,2024(07):28-40.71.叶斌、熊秉元.企业合同纠纷案件中的司法地方保护主义[J].财经问题研究,2020(11):22-31.72.叶康涛等.内部控制信息披露能够降低股价崩盘风险吗?[J].金融研究,2015(2):192-206.73.伊志宏等.企业对外担保与股价崩盘风险——基于A股上市公司的经验证据[J].会计研究,2021(04):157-177.74.于传荣等.上市公司高管因股价崩盘风险受到惩罚了吗?[J].经济管理,2017,39(12):136-156.75.俞国栋等.法律诉讼与公司财务政策[J].证券市场导报,2015(12):27-35.76.岳晓利.我国上市公司频繁并购的风险探析——以蓝色光标为例[J].财会月刊,2017(16):96-101.77.杨棉之等.股价崩盘风险与公司资本成本——基于中国 A 股上市公司的经验证据[J].现代财经—天津财经大学学报,2015(12):41-51.78.姚禄仕、林蕾.过度投资与股价崩盘风险——基于经营与财务风险的路径影响[J].华东经济管理,2021,35(10):101-109.79.尹林辉、朱晨蝶.法律诉讼、政治关联与股价崩盘风险[J].杭州电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2021,17(6):33-41.80.张俊民等.媒体负面报道与商誉减值及时性——基于治理效应与市场压力的实证检验[J].财经论丛,2022(5):79-88.81.张路等.管理者能力与资本市场稳定[J].金融研究,2021(9):188-206.82.张维迎、柯荣住.诉讼过程中的逆向选择及其解释——以契约纠纷的基层法院判决书为例的经验研究[J].中国社会科学,2002(02):31-43+205-206.83.张昕.中国亏损上市公司第四季度盈余管理的实证研究[J].会计研究,2008(04):25-32+93.84.张烨宇等.地方官员更替、制度环境与股价崩盘风险[J].投资研究,2020,39(01):105-122.85.赵放等.审计委员会中会计独董的同城特征与股价崩盘风险[J].审计研究,2017(05):104-112.86.赵康生等.大股东持股与公司诉讼风险——基于中国上市公司的实证分析[J].外国经济与管理,2017(01):84-95.87.赵彦锋.企业诉讼风险与审计师选择研究[J].经济经纬,2021,38(4):103-112.88.周开国等.被诉讼事件披露、股票市场反应与盈余管理[J].上海金融,2015(09):73-80+14.89.祝继高.会计稳健性与债权人利益保护——基于银行与上市公司关于贷款的法律诉讼的研究[J].会计研究,2011(05):50-57+96.90.邹萍.股价崩盘风险、信息透明度与资本结构偏离度——基于沪深A股数据的实证分析[J].科学决策,2013(06):41-54.91.李伟等.股价崩盘风险与审计调整[J].审计研究,2020(6):106-113.92.罗进辉、杜兴强.媒体报道、制度环境与股价崩盘风险[J].会计研究,2014(9):53-59.93.黄炯.管理者短视都是负面效应吗?——基于股价波动的考察[J].财会通讯,2024(18):46-50.94.Allen et al, 2005, Law, finance, and economic growth in China, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.77, pp.57-116.95.Al Mamun et al, 2020, Powerful CEOs and stock price crash risk, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.62: 101582.96.Anderson, 2000, Taking stock in China: Company disclosure and information in China's stock markets, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol.88(6), pp1919-1952.97.Andreou et al, 2017, CEO age and stock price crash risk, Review of Finance, Vol.21, pp1287-1325.98.Arena and Julio, 2015, The effects of securities class action litigation on corporate liquidity and investment policy, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.50, pp251-275.99.Ben et al, 2020, Corporate relationship spending and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China's anti-corruption campaign, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol.113:105758.100.Black, 1976, Noise, Journal of Finance, Vol.41, pp529-542.101.Callen and Fang, 2015, Religion and stock price crash risk, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.50, pp169–195.102.Chen et al, 2001, Forecasting crashes: Trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.61(3), pp345-381.103.Chen et al, 2021, CEO early-life disaster experience and stock price crash risk, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.68:101928.104.Chen et al, 2018, Does crackdown on corruption reduce stock price crash risk? Evidence from China, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.51, pp125-141.105.Clemenz and Gugler, 2000, Macroeconomic development and civil litigation, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.23, pp215-230.106.Donelson et al, 2012, The timeliness of bad earnings news and litigation risk, The Accounting Review, Vol.87, pp1967-1991.107.DuCharme et al, 2004, Earnings management, stock issues and shareholder lawsuits, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.71, pp27-49.108.Engelmann and Cornell, 1988, Measuring the cost of corporate litigation: Five case studies, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.17, pp377-399.109.Filippo, 2021, Roadblock to innovation: The role of patent litigation in corporate R&D, Management Science. Vol.71, pp23-42.110.Hong and Stein, 2003, Differences of opinion, short-sales constraints, and market crashes, Review of Financial Studies, Vol.16, pp487-525.111.Hutton et al, 2009, Opaque financial reports, R², and crash risk, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.94, pp67-86.112.Jin and Myers, 2006, R² around the world: New theory and new tests, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.79, pp257-292.113.Kim et al, 2011, Corporate tax avoidance and stock price crash risk: Firm-level analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.100, pp639-662.114.Kim et al, 2011, CFOs versus CEOs: Equity incentives and crashes, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.101, pp713-730.115.Kim et al, 2016, CEO overconfidence and stock price crash risk, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.33, pp1720-1749.116.Kim and Zhang, 2016, Accounting conservatism and stock price crash risk: Firm-level evidence, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.33, pp412-441.117.Kim and Zhang, 2014, Financial reporting opacity and expected crash risk: Evidence from implied volatility smirks, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.31, pp851-875.118.Kim et al, 2014, Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol.43, pp1-13.119.Kong et al, 2021, Explain or conceal? Causal language intensity in annual report and stock price crash risk. Economic Modelling, Vol.94, pp715-725.120.Li and Chan, 2016, Communist party control and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. Economics Letters, Vol.141, pp5-7.121.Malm and Kanuri, 2020, Litigation risk and payout policy, Managerial Finance, Vol.46, pp24-33122.Massin and Brothers, 1994, Surviving the litigious '90s: What corporate officers and directors can do to minimize the risks of lawsuits, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol.59, pp27-34.123.Mctier and Wald, 2011, The causes and consequences of securities class action litigation, Social Science Electronic Publishing, Vol.17, pp649-665.124.Nguyen et al, 2020, Shareholder litigation rights and capital structure decisions, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.62: 101601.125.Peng, 2022, Corporate financing constraints and stock price crash risk based on overinvestment perspective, BCP Social Sciences & Humanities, Vol.16, pp630-636.126.Pindyck, 1984, Uncertainty in the theory of renewable resource markets, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.51, pp289-303.127.Pukthuanthong et al, 2017, Litigation risk and institutional monitoring, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.45, pp342-359.128.Xu and Chan, 2023, Managers’ short-sightedness, institutional environment and financing risks, International Journal of Advanced Business Studies, Vol.36, pp56-72.129.Seetharaman et al, 2002, Litigation risk and audit fees: Evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.33, pp91-115.130.Shen et al, 2016, Empirical research on corporate governance in China: A review and new directions for the future, Management and Organization Review, Vol.12, pp41-73.
回到顶部