In an article to be published in the forthcoming issue of the American Law and Economics Review, three academic scholars used a statistical analysis to conclude that Kessler Topaz is among the top five plaintiff’s law firms in merger litigation.
The study sought to analyze whether plaintiffs’ counsel had any measurable effect on the outcomes of shareholder M&A litigation. The authors concluded that plaintiffs’ counsel in fact did correlate meaningfully with the type of results achieved in such cases, and that Kessler Topaz was among a select group of five firms which, statistically, “is significantly and positively associated with a higher probability of lawsuit success.”
Analyzing 1,739 lawsuits arising from corporate mergers from 2003-2012, professors Randall Thomas, C.N.V. Krishnan and Steven Davidoff Solomon found that Kessler Topaz, as a “topmost firm,” adopts “more aggressive litigation strategies” that “produce statistically significantly superior results” for stockholders, such as “settlements with significant dollar consideration or settlements amending the terms of the merger agreement.” “In other words, contrary to conventional wisdom and theory, not all plaintiffs’ law firms are alike” when it comes to merger litigation, and Kessler Topaz is “more careful” in screening potential cases and “less likely to have their cases dismissed,” the authors concluded. The firm is honored to be recognized by these scholars as a leader in merger litigation.