Securities and financial disputes measure loss through prices: what the stock did, what it would have done, and what the enterprise was worth. The instrument is powerful, and it is cross-examined like one.
Start a conversation with Cournot, the Institute’s damages concierge, already scoped to securities & financial. Select a subject area to prompt it, or describe the dispute directly.
Financial markets generate the evidence that other damages fields have to construct. Prices update daily or faster, volumes are recorded, and decades of financial economics supply the machinery for asking what a security's price would have done absent the alleged fraud. The central instrument is the event study: a regression that models a stock's normal relationship to the market and its industry, then measures whether the price movement on a disclosure day is abnormal against that baseline, with statistical significance attached. Around it sits a doctrinal structure that is unusually explicit about its economics. The fraud-on-the-market framework rests on whether the security traded in an efficient market; loss causation asks whether the price decline came from the revelation of the alleged truth rather than from everything else moving that day; and per-share damages are assembled from the price inflation the misstatements sustained over the class period. Beyond the securities docket, the same financial machinery serves a family of valuation disputes: appraisal and fair value matters where discounted cash flow models face market-price evidence, solvency analyses in fraudulent transfer litigation, and the valuation of complex instruments and contingent deals. Everything in this area shares a feature worth respecting: the methods are quantitative enough that errors are provable, and expert disputes here are won by the analysis that holds up at the level of daily data and specification detail, not by the smoother narrative.
The instrument, the doctrine around it, and the valuation disputes beyond it.
The standard instrument of securities damages: the market model, abnormal returns, significance, and the specification choices where the fights actually happen.
investigateWhether the market was efficient enough to presume reliance, and whether the decline came from the truth emerging rather than everything else. The two economic gates of a securities case.
investigateAppraisal, solvency, earnouts and instruments without prices: where two models value the same asset a company apart, and the process evidence decides.
investigateHow the Institute approaches a market-based damages question.
Because it answers the question every stage of the case asks: did this information move this price, beyond what the market and the industry explain? Efficiency showings lean on it, price impact fights turn on it, loss causation is argued through it, and per-share damages are built from the abnormal returns it certifies. It is as close to a standardized instrument as litigation economics has, with published methodology and conventions about significance, and that standardization cuts both ways: an event study that departs from the conventions, a nonstandard window, a control model chosen after seeing the results, significance claimed at relaxed thresholds, is conspicuous precisely because the baseline is so well established. Both sides run one, and the dispute is usually over specification rather than over whether to use the tool.
Operationally, it means the security's price rapidly reflects new public information, which is what lets reliance be presumed class-wide instead of proven investor by investor: everyone who traded at the market price is treated as having relied on the integrity of that price. The economic showing is conventional and factor-based: trading volume, analyst and market-maker coverage, institutional ownership, bid-ask spreads, float, and above all the demonstrated cause-and-effect relationship between news and price movement that an event study documents. Thinly traded securities, and instruments whose prices are matrix-derived rather than transaction-driven, complicate every element. Whether the presumption applies, and what rebutting it requires, is doctrine for counsel; the empirical showing underneath is squarely the economist's.
Enough that the modeling should never be transplanted between them unexamined. Fraud-on-the-market class actions build damages from price inflation over the class period, with statutory features, including a lookback provision that caps recoveries by reference to post-disclosure average prices, shaping the arithmetic. Claims tied to registered offerings often carry statutory damages formulas anchored to the offering price, with their own defenses that convert into economic questions about what caused the decline. Merger and appraisal litigation asks a valuation question rather than an inflation question. Each frame changes what the expert must estimate, what the inflation or value benchmark is, and which attacks matter. The claim structure is counsel's; the discipline is refusing to let one claim's machinery quietly answer another claim's question.
The instrument changes from the market to the model, and the scrutiny moves with it. Where no traded price exists, private company appraisals, solvency at the time of a transfer, earnout and indemnification fights, value has to be built from discounted cash flow, comparable companies and transactions, and the analysis inherits the full valuation discipline: projection credibility, discount rate construction, comparability of the peer set. The distinctive feature of these disputes is the collision between model values and transaction evidence, what a real buyer recently paid, or what a market process produced, and much of modern appraisal argument is about when to trust the deal evidence over the model. That question has legal dimensions counsel will know, and an economic core, the integrity of the process that produced the price, that the expert must analyze rather than assume.
Describe the security, the disclosures and the dispute. The Institute will help you see what the analysis must survive.