The Lead Plaintiff Provisions of the PSLRA After a Decade, or 'Look What's Happened to My Baby'

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Vanderbilt Law Review Pub Date : 2007-11-26 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1075267
E. Weiss
{"title":"The Lead Plaintiff Provisions of the PSLRA After a Decade, or 'Look What's Happened to My Baby'","authors":"E. Weiss","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1075267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1995, my colleague John Beckerman and I had an experience shared by very few legal academics. We wrote an article recommending dramatic changes in the manner securities class actions are organized and saw Congress enact into law a bill that included essentially all the recommendations we had made. The article was Let the Money Do the Monitoring: How Institutional Investors Can Reduce Agency Costs in Securities Class Actions, 104 Yale L.J. 2053 (1995); the law was the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\"PSLRA\"); the relevant provisions, now generally known as \"the lead plaintiff provisions,\" prescribe procedures for the selection of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in securities class actions. In this Essay, I recount some aspects of the unique history of the lead plaintiff provisions and reflect on what has happened in the decade or so that they have been in effect. The Essay has six parts. Part I describes the questions that led Professor Beckerman and me to undertake research concerning the dynamics of securities class actions and summarizes our findings and recommendations. Part II sets forth our perspective on how our recommendations came to be enacted into law. Part III describes post-enactment developments that have been consistent with our expectations - most notably, the emergence of institutional investors as major players in securities class action litigation and the related increase in investors' recoveries. Part IV describes post-enactment developments that we did not anticipate, including one precipitated by the emergence of the Internet and another that involves the difficulty, which we should have anticipated, that courts have had in deciding which class member has the largest loss and therefore is the presumptive lead plaintiff. In Part V, we conclude that even had Congress followed a more deliberative process before enacting our recommendations into law, it probably would not have come up with a substantially better approach for organizing the process by which lead plaintiffs and lead counsel are appointed in securities class actions. In Part VI, we recommend that Congress clarify the language of the statute in one minor respect and that courts make changes in how they deal with two administrative issues relating to securities class action litigation.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":"61 1","pages":"543"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2007-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1075267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In 1995, my colleague John Beckerman and I had an experience shared by very few legal academics. We wrote an article recommending dramatic changes in the manner securities class actions are organized and saw Congress enact into law a bill that included essentially all the recommendations we had made. The article was Let the Money Do the Monitoring: How Institutional Investors Can Reduce Agency Costs in Securities Class Actions, 104 Yale L.J. 2053 (1995); the law was the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"); the relevant provisions, now generally known as "the lead plaintiff provisions," prescribe procedures for the selection of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in securities class actions. In this Essay, I recount some aspects of the unique history of the lead plaintiff provisions and reflect on what has happened in the decade or so that they have been in effect. The Essay has six parts. Part I describes the questions that led Professor Beckerman and me to undertake research concerning the dynamics of securities class actions and summarizes our findings and recommendations. Part II sets forth our perspective on how our recommendations came to be enacted into law. Part III describes post-enactment developments that have been consistent with our expectations - most notably, the emergence of institutional investors as major players in securities class action litigation and the related increase in investors' recoveries. Part IV describes post-enactment developments that we did not anticipate, including one precipitated by the emergence of the Internet and another that involves the difficulty, which we should have anticipated, that courts have had in deciding which class member has the largest loss and therefore is the presumptive lead plaintiff. In Part V, we conclude that even had Congress followed a more deliberative process before enacting our recommendations into law, it probably would not have come up with a substantially better approach for organizing the process by which lead plaintiffs and lead counsel are appointed in securities class actions. In Part VI, we recommend that Congress clarify the language of the statute in one minor respect and that courts make changes in how they deal with two administrative issues relating to securities class action litigation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
十年后PSLRA的主要原告条款,或“看看我的孩子发生了什么”
1995年,我和我的同事约翰·贝克曼(John Beckerman)有一段很少有法律学者分享的经历。我们写了一篇文章,建议对证券集体诉讼的组织方式进行重大改革,并看到国会通过了一项法案,其中基本上包含了我们提出的所有建议。《让资金来监督:机构投资者如何降低证券集体诉讼中的代理成本》,《耶鲁法学杂志》(104);该法是1995年《私人证券诉讼改革法》(PSLRA);有关规定,现在一般被称为“首席原告规定”,规定了证券集体诉讼中首席原告和首席律师的选择程序。在这篇文章中,我叙述了主要原告条款独特历史的某些方面,并反思了在这些条款生效的十年左右时间里发生的事情。这篇文章有六个部分。第一部分描述了导致贝克曼教授和我对证券集体诉讼的动态进行研究的问题,并总结了我们的发现和建议。第二部分阐述了我们对我们的建议如何成为法律的看法。第三部分描述了与我们的预期一致的立法后的发展——最值得注意的是,机构投资者作为证券集体诉讼的主要参与者的出现,以及投资者追回资金的相关增加。第四部分描述了我们没有预料到的立法后的发展,包括一个由互联网的出现促成的发展,以及另一个涉及困难的发展,这是我们应该预料到的,法院在决定哪个集体成员损失最大,因此是推定的主要原告时遇到的困难。在第五部分中,我们得出的结论是,即使国会在将我们的建议制定为法律之前遵循了更加审慎的程序,它可能也不会提出一个实质上更好的方法来组织在证券集体诉讼中任命首席原告和首席律师的程序。在第六部分中,我们建议国会在一个次要方面澄清法规的语言,并建议法院在处理与证券集体诉讼有关的两个行政问题时作出改变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Wickedness: Managing Complex Systems and Climate Change Formal Justice and Judicial Precedent Rights, Wrongs, and Recourse in the Law of Torts Discovery Cost Allocation, Due Process, and the Constitution's Role in Civil Litigation Judging Law in Election Cases
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1