An empirical investigation of interfirm lawsuits

Regardless of whether the decision to sue is based more on rational factors (i.e. benefit-to-cost analysis), or irrational factors (such as those described above), these types of cases provide the starting point for this paper. That is, in direct contrast to the numerous theoretical models that have attempted to explain why firms sue each other, relatively little empirical data exists. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide some basic empirical description, grounded in actual observation, of what continues to motivate firms to take each other to court. It is important to note that because relatively little empirical research of this type has previously been undertaken in the area of interfirm lawsuits, it is difficult for the author to make any broad-based conclusions based on the limited number of observations included in the sample. Thus, this paper will be largely descriptive in focus. leaving the reader(s) to derive their own conclusions when interpreting the data. From here this paper goes on to describe the sample in section II, explains the difference between "real" VS. "reported" issues in section III, takes an in-depth look at the empirical results in section IV, and concludes with a summary in section V.