Our univariate results support our expectations that sued firms exhibit a significantly larger stock price decline than do matched nonsued firms prior to the litigation date, both in the long term (from T-5 to T-3) and short term (from T-3 to T-2).
For instance, in the quarter from T-2 to T-1, the mean (median) percentage change in sued firm holdings is -0.99% (-0.48%).
Both types of institutional investors trim their positions significantly during the quarter prior to the litigation date (between T-2 and T-1).
For example, the initial row of results for all time intervals from T-6 to T-1 until T-2 to T-1 demonstrates that all potential pairwise comparisons in portfolio revisions between mutual funds and other institutions are significant at the 5% level, except the comparison between mutual funds and independent investment advisors.
Here, we use the same set of variables that we introduced in Panel A of Table I to model the litigation risk for firm i at T-2 as a logistic function:
where %[DELTA]Institutional [Holdings.sub.iT-2, T-1] represents the percentage change in aggregate institutional holdings in firm i between time T-2 and T-1, and [[eta].sub.iT-1] is the random disturbance for the system.
On May 23 and 24, the board held a termination hearing, at which T-2 testified that he "had other things to do" than comply with the directives, that he did not believe that he should have been subject to such orders, and that "if [he] would've done those [things] .
On May 25, the board voted to terminate T-2's employment based on insubordination and neglect of duty.
On June 22, T-2 filed, without an attorney, a civil rights complaint in federal court against the superintendent, the principal, and other school officials.
On 22 January 2002, a three-member panel of the Seventh Circuit (a different panel from the one that had decided T-1's case) affirmed.2 Applying the multi-step test for public employee expression, the court assumed for the sake of argument that 1) T-2's speech was constitutionally protected and 2) it was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination.
T-2 then engaged in a series of unsuccessful attempts to overturn the Seventh Circuit's decision, starting with a petition for certiorari to the U.S.
Player T-1 can run a criss-cross with T-2
and create more combination attacks on the goal.