Show simple item record

The Public and Private Faces of Derivative Lawsuits

dc.contributor.authorThompson, Robert B., 1949- Thomas, Randall S., 1955-
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-18T18:36:31Z
dc.date.available2014-01-18T18:36:31Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.identifier.citation57 Vand. L. Rev. 1747 (2004)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/5863
dc.description.abstractDerivative suits, long the principal vehicle for discussions about representative litigation in corporate and securities law, now share the stage with younger cousins - securities fraud class actions and state law fiduciary duty class actions. At the same time alternative governance vehicles - independent directors, auditors and other reforms that have followed in the wake of Enron - potentially diminish the relative place of litigation such as derivative suits. This article presents data from all derivative suits filed in Delaware over a two-year period. We find a relatively small number, certainly as compared to fiduciary class action and securities fraud class actions. Unlike these other representative suits, derivative suits are used for both public and close corporations. They arise usually in a duty of loyalty context. Contrary to earlier studies, we do not find evidence that these cases are strike suits yielding little benefit. Instead, roughly 30% of the derivative suits provide relief to the corporation or the shareholders, while the others are usually dismissed quickly with little apparent litigation activity. In cases producing a recovery to shareholders, those amounts typically exceed the amount of attorneys' fees awarded by a significant margin. They do demonstrate some indicia of litigation agency costs (for example suits being filed quickly, multiple suits per controversy, and repeat plaintiffs' law firms), but each of these is much less pronounced for derivative suits than for other forms of representative litigations. Overall, the claim that derivative suits are strike suits is much weaker than in earlier periods. The Delaware judiciary, which hears most public company corporate litigation in America, has effectively monitored these cases. There is room to open the door for larger shareholders to utilize these suits to police corporate misconduct. Institutional shareholders, while not willing to take on as large a role in governance as many have suggested in terms of naming directors and the like, may be willing to take a larger role in derivative litigation. Thus we see potential for derivative litigation to play a more important role in the future. We therefore suggest that suits brought by a one percent or larger shareholder should be excused from the demand requirement currently applied in derivative suits.en_US
dc.format.extent1 document (49 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherVanderbilt Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshStockholders' derivative actions
dc.subject.lcshStockholders' derivative actions -- Delaware
dc.titleThe Public and Private Faces of Derivative Lawsuitsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttp://ssrn.com/abstract=555813


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record