对过多股东诉讼的最适当回应

Lawrence A. Hamermesh
{"title":"对过多股东诉讼的最适当回应","authors":"Lawrence A. Hamermesh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2739750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although Delaware statutes as recently amended prohibit charter and bylaw provisions that would shift fees to stockholders in litigation involving the corporation’s internal affairs, those statutes leave open the possibility that charter and bylaw provisions may regulate other aspects of such stockholder litigation, in addition to choice of forum. This article suggests that the enforceability of such provisions should depend on their tendency to deter or eliminate meritless litigation while not unduly deterring meritorious litigation. The article examines a bylaw under which a stockholder claim would be dismissed if a committee chosen by the largest stockholders affirmatively supported such dismissal. The article evaluates this proposal against the backdrop of previous attempts to limit stockholder litigation, namely security for expenses statutes, special litigation committees in derivative suits, the “most adequate plaintiff” provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a recently adopted bylaw requiring consent of 3% of the stockholders in order to initiate a stockholder class or derivative action.","PeriodicalId":81461,"journal":{"name":"Hofstra law review","volume":"45 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Most Adequate Response to Excessive Shareholder Litigation\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence A. Hamermesh\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2739750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although Delaware statutes as recently amended prohibit charter and bylaw provisions that would shift fees to stockholders in litigation involving the corporation’s internal affairs, those statutes leave open the possibility that charter and bylaw provisions may regulate other aspects of such stockholder litigation, in addition to choice of forum. This article suggests that the enforceability of such provisions should depend on their tendency to deter or eliminate meritless litigation while not unduly deterring meritorious litigation. The article examines a bylaw under which a stockholder claim would be dismissed if a committee chosen by the largest stockholders affirmatively supported such dismissal. The article evaluates this proposal against the backdrop of previous attempts to limit stockholder litigation, namely security for expenses statutes, special litigation committees in derivative suits, the “most adequate plaintiff” provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a recently adopted bylaw requiring consent of 3% of the stockholders in order to initiate a stockholder class or derivative action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hofstra law review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hofstra law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2739750\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hofstra law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2739750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管最近修订的特拉华州法规禁止在涉及公司内部事务的诉讼中将费用转移给股东的章程和细则条款,但这些法规保留了章程和细则条款除了选择诉讼地外,还可以规范此类股东诉讼的其他方面的可能性。本文认为,此类规定的可执行性应取决于它们是否倾向于阻止或消除无正当理由的诉讼,同时又不过分阻止有正当理由的诉讼。本文考察了一项章程,根据该章程,如果由最大股东选择的委员会肯定地支持这种解雇,股东索赔将被驳回。本文在之前限制股东诉讼的尝试的背景下评估了这一建议,即费用担保法规,衍生诉讼中的特别诉讼委员会,1995年私人证券诉讼改革法案的“最充分原告”条款,以及最近通过的一项章程,要求3%的股东同意才能发起股东集体或衍生诉讼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Most Adequate Response to Excessive Shareholder Litigation
Although Delaware statutes as recently amended prohibit charter and bylaw provisions that would shift fees to stockholders in litigation involving the corporation’s internal affairs, those statutes leave open the possibility that charter and bylaw provisions may regulate other aspects of such stockholder litigation, in addition to choice of forum. This article suggests that the enforceability of such provisions should depend on their tendency to deter or eliminate meritless litigation while not unduly deterring meritorious litigation. The article examines a bylaw under which a stockholder claim would be dismissed if a committee chosen by the largest stockholders affirmatively supported such dismissal. The article evaluates this proposal against the backdrop of previous attempts to limit stockholder litigation, namely security for expenses statutes, special litigation committees in derivative suits, the “most adequate plaintiff” provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a recently adopted bylaw requiring consent of 3% of the stockholders in order to initiate a stockholder class or derivative action.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信