MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W295392876

Facilitating Economic Recovery and Sustainable Growth through Reform of the Securities Class-Action System: Exploring Arbitration as an Alternative to Litigation

2010· article· en· W295392876 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bradley J. Bondi

Notice bibliographique

RevueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArbitrationClass actionIssuerBusinessProsperityEconomicsLaw and economicsFinanceLawPolitical scienceEconomic growth
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION I. THE ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SECURITIES CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS A. The Burdens on the Federal Judiciary B. The Costs to Individual Companies C. The Costs to the United States Capital Markets and Economy D. Analysis of the Purported Benefits of Securities Class-Action Lawsuits II. ARBITRATION OF SECURITIES LAW CLAIMS A. The Development of the Law B. The Integrity of Securities Arbitration C. Key Benefits of Arbitration D. Criticisms of Arbitration III. ARBITRATION OF SECURITIES CLASS-ACTION CLAIMS AFTER THE MOTION-TO-DISMISS STAGE IV. ALLOWING NEW ISSUERS TO ELECT ARBITRATION AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION In the aftermath of the global economic collapse of 2008, policymakers from around the world have been considering regulations designed to reduce the risk of future economic turmoil. Their focus has been on powers and procedures designed to reduce systemic risk and to help ensure financial stability in the world markets. (1) Although policymakers should explore prophylactic measures and use counterfactual reasoning, they should not confine their analysis to preventing the next crisis. Regulating against the risk of unpredictable disaster--a so-called black swan (2)--is imprecise and, if done improperly, can hinder economic growth. Along these lines, policymakers must be cautious to avoid a regulatory overreaction to the current economic problems. (3) In an effort to promote long-term economic prosperity, policymakers should avoid the temptation to overregulate in the near term. Policymakers also must alleviate unnecessary burdens to economic growth, both in the United States and abroad. But a monetary response, such as a stimulus spending package, provides only short-term economic relief and could cause a host of problems not discussed in this Article. To promote long-term and sustainable growth, policymakers must consider regulatory measures designed to facilitate capital formation and encourage investment, while providing appropriate safeguards against fraud to investors. Of course, the legal and regulatory systems may pose the greatest impediment to economic growth. (4) The United States has its own unique hindrance to economic growth: private securities class-action litigation. Along with Canada and Australia, the United States is one of three G-20 nations to permit securities class actions. (5) Although originally envisioned as a means to provide relief to aggrieved investors, securities class-action litigation has become an inefficient and grossly incomplete means of redress for investors, a costly encumbrance to businesses, and a threat to capital formation in the United States. To be sure, access to a properly administered class-action framework provides aggrieved plaintiffs with a valuable legal recourse. Despite the drawbacks, class actions--as opposed to individual actions--are necessary to avoid the collective action problem that exists when investors accrue claims against publicly held corporations. In the absence of a class action, an individual shareholder might have little incentive to litigate an alleged securities law violation because he would be forced to bear all the costs of litigation while receiving only a fraction of the potential benefits paid to all shareholders. Class-action litigation avoids the collective action problem by allowing a class of shareholders, following the efforts of lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' attorneys, to share the costs and benefits of a unified action proportionately. The problem with the existing class-action framework in the United States is the overuse and abuse of the litigation system. The magnitude of securities class-action litigation in the United States is astonishing. Nearly half of all class-action lawsuits in 2004 involved allegations of federal securities law violations. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,114
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,005
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,228
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSSRN Electronic JournalMême sujetCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207