Securities Law Commons^™

Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In federal civil litigation, unless a discretionary stay is granted, discovery often proceeds while motions to dismiss are pending. Plaintiffs with non-meritorious cases can compel defendants to spend massively on electronic discovery before courts ever rule on such motions. Defendants who are unable or unwilling to incur the huge up-front expense of electronic discovery may be forced to settle non-meritorious claims. To address multiple electronic discovery issues, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006 and the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2008. However, the amendments failed to significantly reduce costs and failed to address the critical issue …

The Unjustified Judicial Creation Of Class Certification Merits Trials In Securities, Michael J. Kaufman, John M. Wunderlich

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The class action device is vital to deterring securities fraud and remedying its victims, who almost never suffer losses sufficient to justify an individual suit. Nonetheless, the federal courts have begun to convert the class certification process into a premature trial on the merits, thereby precluding victims of securities fraud from pursuing otherwise valid claims of financial wrongdoing. In particular, in a series of important decisions, the federal courts have required plaintiffs to prove the essential elements of their securities fraud claims at the preliminary class certification stage.

This Article demonstrates why this trend should end. The judicial creation of …

Stockholder's Derivative Actions By Holders Of Convertible Debentures, Robert A. Malstrom

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article focuses on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. That rule provides a particularly convenient vehicle for discussing the protective limitations which prevent abuse of the derivative action. Analogous protective limitations exist in the statutory or case law of most jurisdictions, therefore the discussion here applies equally to actions brought in the courts of many states. Moreover, the economic and public policy arguments presented are applicable to actions in both federal and state courts.

Shareholder Derivative Actions: A Modest Proposal To Revise Federal Rule 23.1, Robert A. Kessler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this article is to suggest the addition of two words, "if necessary"-or better yet, the phrase "if necessary under the law of the forum state"-to clause (1) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. This Rule sets forth the requirements for a shareholder's derivative action in the federal courts.