We investigate how the lockdown enforcement by French authorities is associated with the resolution of corporate insolvency. In this sense, we make a distinction between four legal procedures, namely the amicable liquidation (out-of-court exit), the judicial liquidation (court-driven exit), the restructuring procedure available to non-defaulted firms, and the restructuring procedure available to defaulted firms. Using a sample of 3488 non-listed and non-financial French firms, our estimates yield three major findings. First, the likelihood of judicial liquidation increased after the lifting of the quarantines compared to the pre-pandemic period. Second, the non-defaulted firms had a higher likelihood to reorganize in court during the second lockdown. Third, the lifting of the first lockdown led to a decrease in the probability of restructuring the assets of defaulted firms. Although the main objective of the lockdown was to limit spread of the virus, its enforcement has not encouraged the use of the out-of-court exit path.

We provide empirical insight into the consequences of the Covid19 pandemic for the administration of justice. Drawing on a comprehensive monthly panel of Brazilian labor courts and using a difference-in-difference approach, we show that the pandemic has had a large and persistent deleterious effect on adjudicatory efficacy, leading to a massive decrease in the clearance rate and an increase in court backlogs. The pandemic has affected how courts dispose adjudication cases, expectedly causing a plummeting in the share of disputes resolved via trial hearings and, less predictably, exerting a temporally non-linear effect on the share of in-court settlements. Notably, we find no evidence of an effect of the pandemic on efficacy in enforcement. Although the pandemic led to an increase in the share of new filings requiring enforcement, any effect on the relative use of enforcement to execute court-ordered payments has been intermittent and temporary. The intensity of the pandemic has been an important moderating factor.

The political situation in Italy had and still has implications for sovereign credit and redenomination risk. The current political environment is discussed from an economic and legal perspective focusing strongly on the funding situation of Italian banks. Some empirical evidence is reported. The findings depicted here are compatible with the point of view that the political development in Rome has affected the relationship between bank funding costs in Germany and Italy. In fact, there is clear evidence for the relevance of nonlinearities. Given the time period examined, changes to redenomination risk due to fears about Italy leaving the Euro could be one crucial explanation for the findings reported here.

We explore the impact of malpractice caps on non-economic damages that were enacted between 2003 and 2006 on the supply of physician labor, separately for high-malpractice risk and low-malpractice risk physician specialty types, and separately by young and old physicians. We use physician data from the Area Resource File for 2000-2011 and malpractice policy data from the Database of State Tort Law Reforms. We study the impact of these caps using a reverse natural experiment, comparing physician supply in nine states enacting new caps to physician supply in ten states that had malpractice caps in place throughout the full time period. We use an event study to evaluate changes in physician labor compared to the prior year. We find evidence that non-economic damage caps increased the supply of high-risk physicians <35 years of age by 0.93 physicians per 100,000 people in the year after the caps were enacted. Non-economic damage caps were cumulatively associated with an increase of 2.1 high-risk physicians <35 years of age per 100,000 people. Stronger non-economic damage caps generally had a larger impact on physical supply.

We use variation in the generosity of local juries to identify the causal impact of medical malpractice liability on social welfare. Growth in malpractice payments contributed at most 5 percentage points to the 33% total real growth in medical expenditures from 1990-2003. On the other hand, malpractice leads to modest mortality reductions; the value of these more than likely exceeds the costs of malpractice liability. Therefore, reducing malpractice liability is unlikely to have a major impact on health care spending, and unlikely to be cost-effective over conventionally accepted values of a statistical life.