Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Problem With The “Non-Class” Class: An Urgent Call For Improved Gatekeepers In Merger Objection Litigation, Josh Molder

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Until recently, class actions dominated merger objection litigation. However, plaintiff’s lawyers have constructed a “non-class” class where an individual suit can benefit from the leverage of a certified class without ever meeting the stringent class certification requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. This new development has initiated a shift in merger objection litigation where plaintiffs are increasingly filing individual suits instead of class actions. However, this shift has left shareholders vulnerable to collusive settlements because plaintiff’s attorneys have significant control over these suits and a strong incentive to settle quickly for a substantial fee. Additionally, corporate defendants are …

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

Interpleader As A Vehicle For Challenging The Constitutionality Of Private Citizen Action Statutes, Delia Parker

Fordham Law Review

The rise of vigilante-esque statutes creates obstacles for litigants seeking to challenge a statute’s constitutionality. State legislatures in Texas and California enacted laws regulating constitutionally protected activity (abortion and firearm possession, respectively) through statutes enforced solely by private actors. The state legislatures cleverly crafted Texas S.B. 8, as well as other copycat statutes, as bounty hunter statutes to block litigants’ usual path to pre-enforcement adjudication—filing a claim against the state to enjoin its actors from enforcing the improper provisions.

The Texas and California state legislatures attempted to forbid constitutionally protected conduct by granting enforcement power to an infinite number of …