<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/23/shareholder-litigation-without-class-actions-and-the-semi-circularity-problem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:58:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Shareholder Litigation Without Class Actions and The “Semi-Circularity Problem”</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/23/shareholder-litigation-without-class-actions-and-the-semi-circularity-problem/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shareholder-litigation-without-class-actions-and-the-semi-circularity-problem</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/23/shareholder-litigation-without-class-actions-and-the-semi-circularity-problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder suits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=67400?d=20150303153134EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<div style="background: #F8F8F8;padding: 10px;margin-top: 5px;margin-bottom: 10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong>The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/webber_d.html" target="_blank">David H. Webber</a> of Boston University Law School.</div>

<p>What would happen to shareholder litigation if the class action disappeared? In my article, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2456909" target="_blank">Shareholder Litigation Without Class Actions</a>, forthcoming in the <em>Arizona Law Review</em> as part of its symposium on <em>Business Litigation and Regulatory Agency Review in the Era of the Roberts Court</em>, I sketch out some possible futures of post-class action shareholder litigation. For now, such litigation persists despite recent existential challenges, most notably the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in <em>Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton</em>. While these actions may continue in their current form, sustained criticism from sectors of the academy, and from business lobbies, suggest that existential threats to these suits will continue. Such threats have already re-emerged in the form of mandatory arbitration provisions and “loser pays” (more accurately, “plaintiff pays”) fee-shifting provisions in corporate bylaws or certificates of incorporation. While it is possible that such provisions will not spread widely—perhaps because of organized shareholder opposition—the rapid adoption of fee-shifting provisions suggests the possibility that mandatory arbitration or “plaintiff pays” or both could become ubiquitous. If so, either type of provision could eliminate the shareholder class action, or at least drastically reduce its prevalence. As I describe in greater detail in the article, mandatory arbitration provisions requiring bilateral arbitration of claims and barring consolidation of such claims would eliminate the class action in either litigation or arbitration form. (Importantly, even if Delaware were to try to curb arbitration provisions, such action could be preempted by federal law under the Supreme Court’s recent Federal Arbitration Act decisions). Similarly, fee-shifting provisions would greatly increase the risk to plaintiffs generally, and to entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ lawyers in particular, who bear the risks and costs of this litigation, potentially threatening the existence of the plaintiffs’ bar itself and restricting class actions to only a small handful of the most egregious cases. I discuss arbitration and fee shifting provisions in the article, and in the summary below, but I do not confine my analysis to these provisions. Rather, my focus is to assess what would happen to shareholder litigation if the class action disappeared, regardless of the particular mechanism of its demise.</p>

<p><a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/12/22/the-importance-to-the-capital-markets-of-updating-the-rules-regarding-transfer-agents/#more-67385" target="_blank">Click here to read the complete post...</a></p>

]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by June Rhee, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/webber_d.html" target="_blank">David H. Webber</a> of Boston University Law School.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>What would happen to shareholder litigation if the class action disappeared? In my article, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2456909" target="_blank">Shareholder Litigation Without Class Actions</a>, forthcoming in the <em>Arizona Law Review</em> as part of its symposium on <em>Business Litigation and Regulatory Agency Review in the Era of the Roberts Court</em>, I sketch out some possible futures of post-class action shareholder litigation. For now, such litigation persists despite recent existential challenges, most notably the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in <em>Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton</em>. While these actions may continue in their current form, sustained criticism from sectors of the academy, and from business lobbies, suggest that existential threats to these suits will continue. Such threats have already re-emerged in the form of mandatory arbitration provisions and “loser pays” (more accurately, “plaintiff pays”) fee-shifting provisions in corporate bylaws or certificates of incorporation. While it is possible that such provisions will not spread widely—perhaps because of organized shareholder opposition—the rapid adoption of fee-shifting provisions suggests the possibility that mandatory arbitration or “plaintiff pays” or both could become ubiquitous. If so, either type of provision could eliminate the shareholder class action, or at least drastically reduce its prevalence. As I describe in greater detail in the article, mandatory arbitration provisions requiring bilateral arbitration of claims and barring consolidation of such claims would eliminate the class action in either litigation or arbitration form. (Importantly, even if Delaware were to try to curb arbitration provisions, such action could be preempted by federal law under the Supreme Court’s recent Federal Arbitration Act decisions). Similarly, fee-shifting provisions would greatly increase the risk to plaintiffs generally, and to entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ lawyers in particular, who bear the risks and costs of this litigation, potentially threatening the existence of the plaintiffs’ bar itself and restricting class actions to only a small handful of the most egregious cases. I discuss arbitration and fee shifting provisions in the article, and in the summary below, but I do not confine my analysis to these provisions. Rather, my focus is to assess what would happen to shareholder litigation if the class action disappeared, regardless of the particular mechanism of its demise.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/23/shareholder-litigation-without-class-actions-and-the-semi-circularity-problem/#more-67400" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Shareholder Litigation Without Class Actions and The “Semi-Circularity Problem”">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/23/shareholder-litigation-without-class-actions-and-the-semi-circularity-problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
