# kaal:claim:2629451-025

**Claim.** The authors reject Hypothesis 1: they find no evidence that the market reacts negatively to the N/DPA announcement and the start of the term and positively to the end of the term, contrary to the cost-imposition view of N/DPAs.

**Type.** empirical  **Support.** evidenced

**Holds when.**

- 94 firm sample, three event dates

**Source quote.**

> There is no evidence to support Hypothesis 1: The market does not react negatively at ANDPAE (E1a) and BNDPAT (E1b) and positively at ENDPAT (E1c).

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Timothy Lacine, *Stock Price Response to Non- and Deferred Prosecution Agreements* (2015), VI. Discussion, page 19

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Timothy Lacine, Stock Price Response to Non- and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (2015). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629451

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `507404d641abb922ab6d8e3a0b032e35ead2befd7b88746d09d178a8fa816957` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Lacine%20-%202015%20-%20Stock%20Price%20Response%20to%20Non-%20and%20Deferred%20Prosecution%20Agreements.pdf

**Failure mode.** cost-imposition-hypothesis-unsupported  (family: research-design-limitation)

**Topics.** institutional-design

**Keywords.** hypothesis-testing, ndpa-costs, investor-reaction, null-result

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.