Papers on applying CTL over LTSs
The meaning of  simpler in your question is unclear. Kripke structures have a labelling function on states. LTSes have labels on transitions, which can be viewed as a labelling function on transitions. Why is one simpler than the other? In the context of your question, using acronyms like "ACTL" is ambiguous because the "A" could mean all paths or action-based. 

The difference, in my opinion, between Kripke structures and LTSes is based on modelling convenience and not simplicity. There is a lot of work comparing and contrasting the two. Here are a few starting points for chasing down related work. 


De Nicola and Vaandrager have a few papers on translating between Kripke structures and LTSes and how this affects logical properties. They introduce doubly labelled transition systems to move between the two types of representations and semantic interpretations. 

Action versus state based logics for transition systems , De Nicola and Vaandrager, 1990

Three logics for branching bisimulation, De Nicola and Vaandrager, 1995
If the goal is verification of event-based systems, one option is to translate the LTS into a Kripke structure and use a Kripke structure model checker. The translation has to preserve the interpretation of CTL over the LTS. 

An action-based framework for veryfying logical and behavioural properties of concurrent systems, De Nicola, Fantesi, Gnesi, Ristori
Translating between representations involves a blowup. For the case of LTL, there are cases when this blowup can be avoided. Here is a recent paper on the topic. 

State/event-based software model checking, Chaki, Clarke, Ouaknine, Sharygina, Sinha