We exploit the exogenous shock of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision on securities class action loss causation requirements to examine two ways that firms bundle information with restatements: “positive bundling” of good news and “noise bundling” of additional bad news. We find that positive bundling offsets price declines and results in less litigation. In contrast, noise bundling magnifies price declines, but nevertheless deters litigation by confounding which bad news caused a decline. Non-bundled restatements are 5.94 times more likely to result in litigation. Bundled restatements have 8.17 times higher dismissal rates and 21.17 to 23.45 million lower settlement amounts.

We document significant reductions in corporate payouts-both dividends and (to a larger extent) share repurchases-during the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Payout reductions are more likely in firms with higher leverage, more valuable growth options, and lower cash balances, i.e., those more susceptible to the negative consequences of an external financing shock. Moreover, firms appear to use the proceeds from the reduction in payout to maintain cash levels and to fund investment. These findings are consistent with the view that a shock to the supply of credit (net of demand effects) during the financial crisis increased the marginal benefit of cash retention, leading some firms to turn to payout reductions as a substitute form of financing.