Showing 1 - 10 of 17
We extend the 1986 signaling model of Reinganum and Wilde by allowing for the possibility of negative expected value (NEV) suits. If filing costs are zero, the equilibrium consistent with the D1 refinement implies that settlement offers face a rejection rate of 100%. If filing costs are...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10005738791
We analyze contingency fees in the Reinganum and Wilde (1986) signaling model of litigation. The effect of contingency fees on settlement depends on the details of the contingency fee contract and the nature of the informational asymmetry assumed in the model. Introducing bifurcated fee...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10005562246
Asymmetric information is a leading explanation for settlement failure that results in a costly trial. Typically, the information in question is assumed to have bilateral payoff relevance, meaning it affects the expected payoffs of both the plaintiff and defendant. When there is bilateral payoff...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10009421447
Prostitution is a multi-billion dollar, globally distributed, low-concentration service industry that is receiving increasing attention in the economics literature. This article focuses on a widespread, but little studied, feature of this environment—the role of intermediaries (pimps or...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10010683552
We extend the signaling model of Reinganum and Wilde (1986) by allowing for the possibility of negative expected value (NEV) suits. If filing costs are positive, then there exists a separating equilibrium such that plaintiffs with NEV suits choose not to file. By making the filing decision...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014113668
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10008735726
We develop a model with asymmetric information, where the uninformed party makes the offer. When parties proceed to trial, their endogenous expenditures partially determine the outcome. The endogenous spending at trial can either strengthen or weaken the bargaining position of the uninformed...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014191996
Asymmetric information on preferences is a potentially important explanation of bargaining failure. Preferences are not directly observable and information about preferences may be difficult to credibly establish to a bargaining partner. Unobserved preferences which may be relevant for pretrial...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014068541
Much of the law and economics literature, including Bebchuk (1984) and Reinganum and Wilde (1986), explains settlement failure in bargaining as a consequence of asymmetric information. An alternative, non-strategic explanation found in Shavell (1982) suggests that settlement failure stems from...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014037534
Two standard results in the litigation literature are that an informed party will not make a costly voluntary disclosure in a screening game and that the uninformed party will not engage in costly discovery in the signaling game. Both of these results rely on the assumption that the party making...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012945025