From our friend and BLPB colleague, Anne Tucker, following is nice workshop opportunity for your consideration: 

Dear Colleagues,

We (Rob Weber & Anne Tucker) are submitting a funding proposal to host a works-in-progress workshop for 4-8 scholars at Georgia State University College of Law, in Atlanta, Georgia in spring 2018 [between April 16th and May 8th].  Workshop participants will submit a 10-15 page treatment and read all participant papers prior to attending the workshop.  If our proposal is accepted, we will have funding to sponsor travel and provide meals for participants. Interested parties should email amtucker@gsu.edu on or before November 15th with a short abstract (no more than 500 words) of your proposed contribution that is responsive to the description below. Please include your name, school, and whether you will require airfare, miles reimbursement and/or hotel. We will notify interested parties in late December regarding the funding of the workshop and acceptance of proposals.  Please direct all inquiries to Rob Weber (mailto:rweber@gsu.edu) or Anne Tucker (amtucker@gsu.edu).

Call for Proposals: Organizing, Deploying & Regulating Capital in the U.S.

Our topic description is intentionally broad reflecting our different areas of focus, and hoping to draw a diverse group of participants.  Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

  • The idea of financial intermediation: regulation of market failures, the continued relevance of the idea of financial intermediation as a framework for thinking about the financial system, and the legitimating role that the intermediation theme-frame plays in the political economy of financial regulation.
  • Examining institutional investors as a vehicle for individual investments, block shareholders in the economy, a source of efficiency or inefficiency, an evolving industry with the rise of index funds and ETFs, and targets of SEC liquidity regulations.
  • The role and regulation of private equity and hedge funds in U.S. capital markets looking at regulatory efforts, shadow banking concerns, influences in M&A trends, and other sector trends.

This workshop targets works-in-progress and is intended to jump-start your thinking and writing for the 2018 summer.  Our goal is to provide comments, direction, and connections early in the writing and research phase rather than polishing completed or nearly completed pieces.  Bring your early ideas and your next phase projects.  We ask for a 10-15 page treatment of your thesis (three weeks before the workshop) and initial ideas to facilitate feedback, collaboration, and direction from participating in the workshop. Interested parties should email amtucker@gsu.edu on or before November 15th with a short abstract (no more than 500 words) of your proposed contribution that is responsive to the description below. Please include your name, school, and whether you will require airfare, miles reimbursement and/or hotel. We will notify interested parties in late December regarding the funding of the workshop and acceptance of proposals.  Please direct all inquiries to Rob Weber (rweber@gsu.edu) or Anne Tucker (amtucker@gsu.edu).

Thank you!

Anne & Rob

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW

BUSINESS LAW AND/OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

OPEN RANK FACULTY POSITION

The University of New Mexico (“UNM”) School of Law invites applications for a faculty position in Business Law and/or Intellectual Property. The faculty position is a full-time tenured or tenure-track position starting in Fall 2018. Entry-level and experienced teachers are encouraged to apply. Courses taught by this faculty member could include general business courses, intellectual property courses, and commercial law courses. Candidates must possess a J.D. or equivalent legal degree. Preferred qualifications include a record of demonstrated excellence or the promise of excellence in teaching and academic scholarship and who demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and student success, as well as working with broadly diverse communities. Academic rank and salary will be based on experience and qualifications. For best consideration, applicants should apply by October 22, 2017. The position will remain open until filled. For complete information, visit the UNMJobs website: https://unmjobs.unm.edu/. The position is listed as Open Rank – Business Law Requisition Number 2761.

The University of New Mexico is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.

Direct Link to Job: https://unm.csod.com/ats/careersite/jobdetails.aspx?site=1&c=unm&id=2761&m=-1&u=16023

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of hearing a talk about universal proxies from Scott Hirst, Research Director of Harvard’s Program on Institutional Investors.

By way of background, last Fall under the Obama Administration, the SEC proposed a requirement for universal proxies noting:

Today’s proposal recognizes that few shareholders can dedicate the time and resources necessary to attend a company’s meeting in person and that, in the modern marketplace, most voting is done by proxy.  This proposal requires a modest change to address this reality.  As proposed, each party in a contest still would bear the costs associated with filing its own proxy statement, and with conducting its own independent solicitation.  The main difference would be in the form of the proxy card attached to the proxy statement.  Subject to certain notice, filing, form, and content requirements, today’s proposal would require each side in a contest for the first time to provide a universal proxy card listing all the candidates up for election.

The Council of Institutional Investors favors their use explaining, “”Universal” proxy cards would let shareowners vote for the nominees they wish to represent them on corporate boards. This is vitally important in proxy contests, when board seats (and in some cases, board control) are at stake. Universal proxy cards would make for a fairer, less cumbersome voting process.” 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has historically spoken out against them, arguing:

Mandating a universal ballot, also known as a universal proxy card, at all public companies would inevitably increase the frequency and ease of proxy fights. Such a development has no clear benefit to public companies, their shareholders, or other stakeholders. The SEC has historically sought to remain neutral with respect to interactions between public companies and their investors, and has always taken great care not to implement any rule that would favor one side over the other. We do not understand why the SEC would now pursue a policy that would increase the regularity of contested elections or cause greater turnover in the boardroom.

I can’t speak for the Chamber, but I imagine one big concern would be whether universal proxies would provide proxy advisors such as ISS and Glass Lewis even more power than they already have with institutional investors. When I asked Hirst about this, he did not believe that the level of influence would rise significantly.

Hirst’s paper provides an empirical study that supports his contention that reform would help mitigate some of the distortions from the current system. It’s worth a read, although he acknowledges that in the current political climate, his proposal will not likely gain much traction. The abstract is below:

Contested director elections are a central feature of the corporate landscape, and underlie shareholder activism. Shareholders vote by unilateral proxies, which prevent them from “mixing and matching” among nominees from either side. The solution is universal proxies. The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a universal proxy rule, which has been the subject of heated debate and conflicting claims. This paper provides the first empirical analysis of universal proxies, allowing evaluation of these claims.

The paper’s analysis shows that unilateral proxies can lead to distorted proxy contest outcomes, which disenfranchise shareholders. By removing these distortions, universal proxies would improve corporate suffrage. Empirical analysis shows that distorted proxy contests are a significant problem: 11% of proxy contests at large U.S. corporations between 2001 and 2016 can be expected to have had distorted outcomes. Contrary to the claims of most commentators, removing distortions can most often be expected to favor management nominees, by a significant margin (two-thirds of distorted contests, versus one-third for dissident nominees). A universal proxy rule is therefore unlikely to lead to more proxy contests, or to greater success by special interest groups.

Given that the arguments made against a universal proxy rule are not valid, the SEC should implement proxy regulation. A rule permitting corporations to opt-out of universal proxies would be superior to the SEC’s proposed mandatory rule. If the SEC chooses not to implement a universal proxy regulation, investors could implement universal proxies through private ordering to adopt “nominee consent policies.

National Business Law Scholars Conference
Thursday & Friday, June 21-22, 2018

Call for Papers

The National Business Law Scholars Conference (NBLSC) will be held on Thursday and Friday, June 21-22, 2018, at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, Georgia.  A vibrant college town, Athens is readily accessible from the Atlanta airport by vans that depart hourly. Information about transportation, hotels, and other conference-related matters can be found on the conference website.

This is the ninth meeting of the NBLSC, an annual conference that draws legal scholars from across the United States and around the world.  We welcome all scholarly submissions relating to business law. Junior scholars and those considering entering the legal academy are especially encouraged to participate. If you are thinking about entering the academy and would like to receive informal mentoring and learn more about job market dynamics, please let us know when you make your submission.

To submit a presentation, email Professor Eric C. Chaffee at eric.chaffee@utoledo.edu with an abstract or paper by February 16, 2018.  Please title the email “NBLSC Submission – {Your Name}.”  If you would like to attend, but not present, email Professor Chaffee with an email entitled “NBLSC Attendance.”  Please specify in your email whether you are willing to serve as a panel moderator.  We will respond to submissions with notifications of acceptance shortly after the submission deadline. We anticipate circulating the conference schedule in May.

Keynote Speakers:

Paul G. Mahoney
David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia School of Law

Cindy A. Schipani
Merwin H. Waterman Collegiate Professor of Business Administration
Professor of Business Law
University of Michigan Ross School of Business

Featured Panels:

The Criminal Side of Business in 2018

Miriam Baer, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
José A. Cabranes, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Peter J. Henning, Professor of Law, Wayne State University School of Law
Kate Stith, Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Larry D. Thompson, John A. Sibley Professor in Corporate and Business Law, University of Georgia School of Law

A Wild Decade in Finance: 2008-18

William W. Bratton, Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Giles T. Cohen, Attorney, Securities & Exchange Commission
Lisa M. Fairfax, Leroy Sorenson Merrifield Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
James Park, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Roberta Romano, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Veronica Root, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

Conference Organizers:

Anthony J. Casey (The University of Chicago Law School)
Eric C. Chaffee (The University of Toledo College of Law)
Steven Davidoff Solomon (University of California, Berkeley School of Law)
Joan MacLeod Heminway (The University of Tennessee College of Law)
Kristin N. Johnson (Seton Hall University School of Law)
Elizabeth Pollman (Loyola Law School, Los Angeles)
Margaret V. Sachs (University of Georgia School of Law)
Jeff Schwartz (University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law)

Readers of this blog know about the case of Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, currently pending before the Supreme Court, which will decide whether an omission of required information can give rise to private liability under Rule 10b-5.  In Leidos, the corporate defendant engaged in a scheme of overbilling on a New York City contract, which ultimately resulted in a deferred prosecution agreement and significant monetary penalties.  The plaintiffs alleged that the company violated Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose the conduct and associated potential penalties as a “known trend”  in its SEC filings, as required by Item 303.  The Second Circuit allowed the claim to proceed; Leidos now argues before the Supreme Court that its failure to disclose required information cannot satisfy the element of falsity in a private claim brought under Rule 10b-5.  In other words, the question is whether – assuming all the other elements of a fraud claim are established (materiality, scienter, loss causation, etc) – can the omission of required information count as a false statement?

Joan Heminway co-authored an amicus brief arguing that Rule 10b-5 does provide for omissions liability, and this is an issue I’ve blogged about a few times, so forgive me if this post treads some familiar ground.

The case has generated a fair amount of commentary from the bar, including various warnings of unlimited liability should the Supreme Court rule for the plaintiffs.  Professor Joseph Grundfest has now jumped into the fray, contending that – while he agrees with various textual arguments as to why no liability should attach – in the end, he doesn’t think it matters very much.   The crux of his argument is that the securities laws require so much disclosure as a matter of course that there will almost never be a case where a pure omission cannot be transmogrified into a misleading half-truth.  In Leidos itself, he notes that the court also upheld the plaintiffs’ allegation that the corporate financial statements violated accounting rules for failure to allege a loss contingency – resulting from fines and recoupment of the overbilling – and speculates that the plaintiffs could have brought claims based on the company’s representations that it did not expect any losses resulting from pending litigation, as well as such “half-truths” as its warnings of potential risks from “[m]isconduct of our employees.”  He also argues that – though the matter is uncertain – required CEO and CFO certifications under Sarbanes Oxley can also constitute affirmative misstatements when information has been omitted from a securities filing, which would once again make omissions liability unnecessary.

I agree that pure omissions cases are relatively rare, and that due to the extensive disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws, most undisclosed misconduct/misfortune can be pinned to an arguably false affirmative statement (a point that I’ve discussed in my articles Slouching Towards Monell and Reviving Reliance).  But I don’t think the matter is quite as trivial as Prof. Grundfest sees it.

First, when it comes to certifications, those are attributed solely to the CEO and CFO.  Not all securities claims depend on the liability of the CEO and CFO; at the very least, at the pleading stage, the plaintiffs may not be able to demonstrate the scienter of the CEO and CFO.  In Leidos itself, for example, for reasons I don’t fully understand, somehow all of the individual defendants were dropped from the case, leaving only the corporate defendant.  Thus, leaving aside other issues of whether such certifications are actionable in the first place, they’re an unreliable predicate for liability.

More broadly, however, what Prof. Grundfest overlooks is that many courts – rightly or wrongly –  treat Rule 10b-5 claims with varying degrees of skepticism, and plaintiffs reasonably want to belt-and-suspender it.   Now, to be sure, if a judge is determined to dismiss a claim, the judge will find a way to do so (naturally, the opposite is true for a judge who is determined to sustain a claim).  But between those extremes there is a great deal of variation, and broadening the grounds for liability will make it harder for even the skeptical judge to dismiss a claim out of hand.

When it comes to omitted information, for sure, public companies are already subject to so many disclosure requirements that there will always be some affirmative statement that is arguably rendered misleading whenever there is a significant undisclosed problem, which should theoretically make pure omissions liability unnecessary.  But courts are often hostile to these kinds of claims – I think of them as icebergs – where major trouble is pinned to a banal bit of boilerplate.  (You know, like an iceberg, where the tiny above-water misstatement is the ostensible hook to bring a claim based on dramatic concealed problems.)   Courts typically recognize – correctly – that in such cases, the plaintiff is not so much complaining about the statement so much as the conduct, and since it is only statements (not conduct) that are regulated by the federal securities laws, they find other grounds on which to base a dismissal.  One favorite is puffery, which is precisely what happened in Leidos – the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ representations about ethics and integrity were rendered false by the scheme, and those claims were thrown out on materiality grounds.  Omissions liability, by contrast, is immune from a puffery defense, and thus represents another weapon in the plaintiffs’ arsenal.

Similarly, in many cases the alleged “half-truth” will come in the form of a potentially forward-looking statement, which may then be protected by the PSLRA safe harbor.  If so, pinning liability to that statement (or even to the risk disclosures) may be impossible for the plaintiffs.  Once again, then, pure omissions liability will save the plaintiffs’ complaint.

To be sure, as Prof. Grundfest points out, in Leidos, the Second Circuit agreed that the failure to account for potential losses due to the fraud rendered the corporate financial statements false.  But that was highly unusual, and likely due to the fact that the misconduct was already the subject of a criminal investigation.  Courts have often refused to treat financial statements as false simply because the income was generated in an illicit manner, see Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., 2006 WL 2827740 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2006), and that’s particularly likely to be true when there is no governmental investigation underway.

The same goes for Leidos’s statements about potential liability from pending claims/litigation.  Prof. Grundfest might be correct that these were also false statements, but only after 2010, when the first criminal complaint was filed.  Though the plaintiffs altered their claims along the way, the original class period began in 2007 – before there was any pending litigation.

It is also worth observing that omissions cases might be easier to litigate procedurally.  When plaintiffs allege the existence of affirmative misstatements, defendants often argue that the misstatement failed to result in a detectable impact on stock prices, and that therefore fraud on the market liability is unavailable (an argument I’ve repeatedly discussed).  That’s not an issue for omissions liability. 

Point being, I don’t think my disagreements with Prof. Grundfest are too dramatic – I’ll concede that we’re not talking about a massive number of cases – but I think there are enough to make a difference. 

That said, I disagree with the “sky is falling” pronouncements of practitioners who fear that they will have to bury investors in an “avalanche of trivial information,” Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), if the Supreme Court permits the claims in Leidos to proceed.  As I argue in Reviving Reliance, I actually think that if liability is expanded to cover omissions, courts will push back by narrowing their interpretation of the scope of required disclosures in the first place – which will have real repercussions for SEC enforcement.

Yesterday, I listened to How I Built This‘ podcast on Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Yogurt.

I assume most readers are familiar with Stonyfield Yogurt, and perhaps a bit of its story, but I think the podcast goes far beyond what is generally known. 

The main thing that stuck out in the podcast was how many struggles Stonyfield faced. Most of the companies featured on How I Built This struggle for a few months or even a few years, but Stonyfield seemed to face more than its share of challenges for well over a decade. The yogurt seemed pretty popular early on, but production, distribution, and cash flow problems haunted them. Stonyfield also had a tough time sticking with their organic commitment, abandoning organic for a few years when they outsourced production and couldn’t convince the farmers to follow their practices. With friends and family members’ patient investing (including Gary’s mother and mother-in-law), Stonyfield finally found financial success after raising money for its own production facility, readopting organic, and finding broader distribution.

After about 20 years, Stonyfield sold the vast majority of the company to large multinational Group Danone. Gary explained that some investors were looking for liquidity and that he felt it was time to pay them back for their commitment. Gary was able to negotiate some control rights for himself (unspecified in the podcast) and stayed on as chairman. While this sale was a big payday for investors, it is unclear how much of the original commitment to the environment and community remained. Also, the podcast did not mention that Danone announced, a few months ago, that it would sell Stonyfield. 

Personally, I am a fan of Stonyfield’s yogurt and it will be interesting to follow their story under new ownership. I also think students and faculty members could benefit from listening to stories like this to remind us that success is rarely easy and quick. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard argument on three cases[1] that could have a significant impact on an estimated 55% of employers and 25 million employees. The Court will opine on the controversial use of class action waivers and mandatory arbitration in the employment context. Specifically, the Court will decide whether mandatory arbitration violates the National Labor Relations Act or is permissible under the Federal Arbitration Act. Notably, the NLRA applies in the non-union context as well.

Monday’s argument was noteworthy for another reason—the Trump Administration reversed its position and thus supported the employers instead of the employees as the Obama Administration had done when the cases were first filed. The current administration also argued against its own NLRB’s position that these agreements are invalid.

In a decision handed down by the NLRB before the Trump Administration switched sides on the issue, the agency ruled that Dish Network’s mandatory arbitration provision violates §8(a)(1) of the NLRA because it “specifies in broad terms that it applies to ‘any claim, controversy and/or dispute between them, arising out of and/or in any way related to Employee’s application for employment, employment and/or termination of employment, whenever and wherever brought.’” The Board believed that employees would “reasonably construe” that they could not file charges with the NLRB, and this interfered with their §7 rights.

The potential impact of the Supreme Court case goes far beyond employment law, however. As the NLRB explained on Monday:

The Board’s rule here is correct for three reasons. First, it relies on long-standing precedent, barring enforcement of contracts that interfere with the right of employees to act together concertedly to improve their lot as employees. Second, finding individual arbitration agreements unenforceable under the Federal Arbitrations Act savings clause because are legal under the National Labor Relations Act gives full effect to both statutes. And, third, the employer’s position would require this Court, for the first time, to enforce an arbitration agreement that violates an express prohibition in another coequal federal statute. (emphasis added).

This view contradicted the employers’ opening statement that:

Respondents claim that arbitration agreements providing for individual arbitration that would otherwise be enforceable under the FAA are nonetheless invalid by operation of another federal statute. This Court’s cases provide a well-trod path for resolving such claims. Because of the clarity with which the FAA speaks to enforcing arbitration agreements as written, the FAA will only yield in the face of a contrary congressional command and the tie goes to arbitration. Applying those principles to Section 7 of the NLRA, the result is clear that the FAA should not yield.

My co-bloggers have written about mandatory arbitration in other contexts (e.g., Josh Fershee on derivative suits here, Ann Lipton on IPOs here, on corporate governance here, and on shareholder disputes here, and Joan Heminway promoting Steve Bradford’s work here). Although Monday’s case addresses the employment arena, many have concerns with the potential unequal playing field in arbitral settings, and I anticipate more litigation or calls for legislation.  

I wrote about arbitration in 2015, after a New York Times series let the world in on corporate America’s secret. Before that expose, most people had no idea that they couldn’t sue their mobile phone provider or a host of other companies because they had consented to arbitration. Most Americans subject to arbitration never pay attention to the provisions in their employee handbook or in the pile of paperwork they sign upon hire. They don’t realize until they want to sue that they have given up their right to litigate over wage and hour disputes or join a class action.

As a defense lawyer, I drafted and rolled out class action waivers and arbitration provisions for businesses that wanted to reduce the likelihood of potentially crippling legal fees and settlements. In most cases, the employees needed to sign as a condition of continued employment. Thus, I’m conflicted about the Court’s deliberations. I see the business rationale for mandatory arbitration of disputes especially for small businesses, but as a consumer or potential plaintiff, I know I would personally feel robbed of my day in court.

The Court waited until Justice Gorsuch was on board to avoid a 4-4 split, but he did not ask any questions during oral argument. Given the questions that were asked and the makeup of the Court, most observers predict a 5-4 decision upholding mandatory arbitrations. The transcript of the argument is here. If that happens, I know that many more employers who were on the fence will implement these provisions. If they’re smart, they will also beef up their compliance programs and internal complaint mechanisms so that employees don’t need to resort to outsiders to enforce their rights.

My colleague Teresa Verges, who runs the Investor Rights Clinic at the University of Miami, has written a thought-provoking article that assumes that arbitration is here to stay. She proposes a more fair arbitral forum for those she labels “forced participants.” The abstract is below:

Decades of Supreme Court decisions elevating the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) have led to an explosion of mandatory arbitration in the United States. A form of dispute resolution once used primarily between merchants and businesses to resolve their disputes, arbitration has expanded to myriad sectors, such as consumer and service disputes, investor disputes, employment and civil rights disputes. This article explores this expansion to such non-traditional contexts and argues that this shift requires the arbitral forum to evolve to increase protections for forced participants and millions of potential claims that involve matters of public policy. By way of example, decades of forced arbitration of securities disputes has led to increased due process and procedural reforms, even as concerns remain about investor access, the lack of transparency and investors’ perception of fairness.

I’ll report back on the Court’s eventual ruling, but in the meantime, perhaps some policymakers should consider some of Professor Verges’ proposals. Practically speaking though, once the NLRB has its full complement of commissioners, we can expect more employer-friendly decisions in general under the Trump Administration.

 

[1] Murphy Oil USA v. N.L.R.B., 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 809, 196 L. Ed. 2d 595 (2017); Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 809, 196 l. Ed. 2d. 595 (2017); Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 809, 196 L. Ed. 2d 595 (2017)

Yesterday, Professor Bainbridge posted “Is there a case for abolishing derivative litigation? He makes the case as follows: 

A radical solution would be elimination of derivative litigation. For lawyers, the idea of a wrong without a legal remedy is so counter-intuitive that it scarcely can be contemplated. Yet, derivative litigation appears to have little if any beneficial accountability effects. On the other side of the equation, derivative litigation is a high cost constraint and infringement upon the board’s authority. If making corporate law consists mainly of balancing the competing claims of accountability and authority, the balance arguably tips against derivative litigation. Note, moreover, that eliminating derivative litigation does not eliminate director accountability. Directors would remain subject to various forms of market discipline, including the important markets for corporate control and employment, proxy contests, and shareholder litigation where the challenged misconduct gives rise to a direct cause of action.

If eliminating derivative litigation seems too extreme, why not allow firms to opt out of the derivative suit process by charter amendment? Virtually all states now allow corporations to adopt charter provisions limiting director and officer liability. If corporate law consists of a set of default rules the parties generally should be free to amend, as we claim, there seems little reason not to expand the liability limitation statutes to allow corporations to opt out of derivative litigation.

I think he makes a good point.  And included in the market discipline and other measures that Bainbridge notes would remain in place to maintain director accountability, there would be the shareholder response to the market.  That is, if shareholders value derivative litigation as an option ex ante, the entity can choose to include derivative litigation at the outset or to add it later if the directors determine the lack of a derivative suit option is impacting the entity’s value.  

Professor Bainbridge’s post also reminded me of another option: arbitrating derivative suits.  A friend of mine made just such a proposal several years ago while we were in law school: 

There are a number of factors that make the arbitration of derivative suits desirable. First, the costs of an arbitration proceeding are usually lower than that of a judicial proceeding, due to the reduced discovery costs. By alleviating some of the concern that any D & O insurance coverage will be eaten-up by litigation costs, a corporation should have incentive to defend “frivolous” or “marginal” derivative claims more aggressively. Second, and directly related to litigation costs, attorneys’ fees should be cut significantly via the use of arbitration, thus preserving a larger part of any pecuniary award that the corporation is awarded. Third, the reduced incentive of corporations to settle should discourage the initiation of “frivolous” or “marginal” derivative suits.

Andrew J. Sockol, A Natural Evolution: Compulsory Arbitration of Shareholder Derivative Suits in Publicly Traded Corporations, 77 Tul. L. Rev. 1095, 1114 (2003) (footnote omitted). 

Given the usually modest benefit of derivative suits, early settlement of meritorious suits, and the ever-present risk of strike suits, these alternatives are well worth considering.