We assemble and describe a sample of 174,782 lawsuits filed against 218,437 public‐company lawsuit‐defendants in federal district court from 2006 to 2021. These lawsuits involve an array of allegations, including product liability, civil rights discrimination, contract breaches, improper compensation and labor practices, antitrust violations, corruption, securities violations, pollution, and intellectual property infringement. The sample exhibits rich variation across firms, industries, time, suit type, plaintiffs, and outcomes—reflecting not only firm activities but also social, political, and regulatory trends. Although many claims matter very little, some are important individually or in aggregate. We observe 23% of defendants experience a market value decline exceeding 10% of current assets around the lawsuit filing. Consistent with the notion that even low‐stakes claims, when numerous or persistent, can introduce frictions or reflect underlying issues, we find that aggregate legal exposure is associated with increased return volatility and decreased profitability. Subsequent tests indicate that materiality, public and private enforcement, and firms’ information environments (as well as other firm traits) are associated with managers’ decisions to disclose these claims. Collectively, our descriptive evidence establishes a foundation for further research into underexplored types of corporate litigation that represent a broad range of alleged wrongdoing and socially irresponsible behavior.

We examine whether and, if so, how retail consumers change their shopping in response to firm‐specific negative environmental, social, and governance (ESG) news. Using an event study methodology, we do not find significant changes in consumer foot traffic in response to negative ESG news, on average. However, the average consumer reacts negatively when such news is covered by national or global media outlets, which elevates consumer awareness. In addition, we provide evidence of the heterogeneity in responses to negative ESG news across consumer groups. Consumers in more ESG‐conscious counties, as measured by county ESG preferences, income, education, and political ideology, reduce store visits in response to negative ESG news. In contrast, consumers in the least ESG‐conscious counties increase their visits in response to negative ESG news. These opposing reactions explain the insignificant average consumer response to negative ESG news. Furthermore, the ESG‐conscious consumers' negative reaction is, at most, modest, dissipating within six weeks. Overall, our findings suggest that firms face divergent responses to ESG activities from different consumer groups, underscoring the divisive nature of ESG issues.

We find that banking relationships built through institutional cross‐ownership influence the granting of loans as well as loan contract terms. Firms that are newly added to institutional cross‐owners' portfolios are more likely to borrow from banks that previously issued loans to other firms within the same portfolio. These related banks charge lower loan interest spreads and offer greater loan amounts than other banks issuing loans to the same borrower. However, such loans also are more likely to include capital covenants in the presence of high shareholder–debtholder conflicts. Thus, lenders appear to value the benefits of common institutional ownership while still protecting themselves against potential risk shifting. The interest spread effect is stronger for borrowers with high information asymmetry, low accounting quality, more financial distress risk, and dedicated institutional common owners. These results are consistent with either direct information flows or indirect signaling effects and are robust to different fixed effects specifications as well as to an identification strategy that exploits common ownership stemming from financial institution mergers. Overall, our study provides evidence that investor networks play a beneficial role in the production and dissemination of contracting‐relevant information and highlights cross‐ownership as a favorable determinant for contracting efficiency beyond traditional accounting measures.

A recent trend is that firms prefer to hire generalist CEOs with transferable skills (across firms or industries) over hiring specialist CEOs, but the consequences of this trend are unclear. In this study, we examine whether credit rating agencies consider a CEO's general skills as a credit risk factor when assessing an entity's overall creditworthiness. We predict and find that generalist CEOs are associated with lower credit ratings, suggesting that the presence of generalist CEOs is a significant credit rating factor. We also find that generalist CEOs are likely to take on more risks, which leads to more volatile performance ex post, and our path analyses confirm default risk is a significant mediator between credit ratings and CEOs' general skills. Our results hold in the presence of additional controls (e.g., CEO characteristics and corporate governance), when applying different fixed‐effect models and different matching methods, and for a subsample with forced CEO turnover. We also find that the negative relationship is attenuated for R&D‐intensive firms and firms in competitive industries. Last, we provide evidence that firms with generalist CEOs face higher borrowing costs, such as bond yields and syndicated loan spreads. Overall, our results contribute to a growing literature on the costs and benefits of hiring generalist CEOs, by providing a full picture of why hiring a generalist CEO may benefit shareholders but also cause misalignments with bondholders' interests.