Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Loss Causation And Class Certification, Steven Serajeddini
Loss Causation And Class Certification, Steven Serajeddini
Michigan Law Review
Courts have long faced difficulty interpreting loss causation under Section 10b-5 of the Securities Act of 1934. This difficulty stems from the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between this core element of common law fraud and the procedural demands of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the typical vehicle for a 10b-5 class action. Recently, some courts and commentators have begun to consider loss causation as an individualized inquiry that is not common among class members, and one that therefore warrants consideration at the class certification stage. The existing justifications center on the conceptually distinct 10b-5 element of reliance, …
Corporate Cooperation Through Cost-Sharing, Nicola Faith Sharpe
Corporate Cooperation Through Cost-Sharing, Nicola Faith Sharpe
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Applying a game-theoretic approach based on the classic prisoners' dilemma provides valuable insights into corporate managers' decision-making incentives under existing discovery rules. It demonstrates that the fee structure imposed by current discovery rules leads to inefficiency and motivates corporate litigants on either side of a controversy to employ abusive discovery practices, although each party would benefit from cooperation. Using this framework, this Article shows how a cost-sharing regime can motivate litigants to engage in cooperative discovery and, as a consequence, facilitate more efficient and less abusive discovery practices. To date, scholars, who have posited that cooperative behavior in the discovery …
Pleading And The Dilemmas Of “General Rules”, Stephen B. Burbank
Pleading And The Dilemmas Of “General Rules”, Stephen B. Burbank
All Faculty Scholarship
This article comments on Professor Geoffrey Miller’s article about pleading under Tellabs and goes on (1) to use Tellabs, Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, and Iqbal v. Hasty (in which the Court has granted review) to illustrate the limits of, and costs created by, certain foundational assumptions and operating principles that are associated with the Rules Enabling Act’s requirement of “general rules,” and (2) more generally, to illustrate the costs of the complex procedural system that we have created. Thus, for instance, the argument that the standards emerging from Twombly should be confined to antitrust conspiracy cases confronts the foundational …