My policies

  • Although this blog does not accept comments, I welcome thoughtful non-anonymous emails to lribstei at gmail.com and may discuss them in blog posts. Let me know if I may use your name. Although I'm a law professor, I don't give legal advice.

Me

My audience

Blog powered by TypePad

« Directors' Duties in Failing Firms | Main | What kind of sport is a partnership? »

Dumping and suing yet again

Moin Yahya has a WSJ op-ed criticizing the practice of dumping and suing – that is, short-selling on advance knowledge of filing a class action lawsuit. He’s concerned that this “constitutes market manipulation of the first order.” The manipulation, he thinks, lies in the non-disclosure of the foreknowledge of the suit, and in the possibility that the plaintiff might have incentive to dump, sue, sell, and then withdraw the suit.

I criticized Yahya’s article on this topic here. Bruce Kobayashi and I have a longer article (draft out soon) analyzing this and similar examples of outsider trading as incentive devices. The bottom line, as I said in my initial post

If a plaintiff or his lawyer (with the plaintiff’s permission, so no misappropriation) is short-selling based on the true information that a suit is forthcoming I don’t see how this is illegal under current law – it’s not fraud without a duty to disclose, and it’s probably not illegal insider trading or manipulation.

Yahya’s WSJ oped persists in his blanket claim of illegality despite this fairly elementary principle of securities law. As a result, he allows his polemic against the practice to obscure some real, and more important, issues.

To begin with, there is actually something to be said for using the markets to compensate people who bring in new information, such as the information underlying a lawsuit. Yahya calls this double-compensating class action lawyers. But the question is whether the fee the lawyer receives provides a socially optimal incentive to sue. 

More broadly, in the interests of efficient markets, we could hardly want to have broad liability merely for trading on undisclosed information.

Now I can already hear the howls: how could I possibly be suggesting that securities class action lawyers are under-compensated? Well, I’m not saying that. I’m only positing the correct analytical approach. Assuming over-compensation is an incorrect way to analyze this issue.

In fact, in later messages here, and here, I indicate that this practice may lead to overcompensating the lawyers because – and here’s the kicker – the suits don’t serve a valuable social function. In other words, the big question here is how much we want these suits. If, as I suspect may be the case, their net value, even including deterring fraud, is negative, the way to deal with these problems is to get rid of the suits.

Assuming we’re stuck with the present system, what should we do about dumping and suing? Well, we’ve got adequate tools under current law. Courts may, and at least one has, dismiss a dumping and suing plaintiff an inadequate class representative. This sort of ruling effectively gives the plaintiff or his lawyer the option to dump or sue – no double recovery.

Also, Yahya is worried about the dumping with the idea of suing and then withdrawing the lawsuit. If the dumper-suer never intended to follow through with the lawsuit, that might be manipulation under current law, or lead to an abuse of process claim. And to the extent that Yahya is concerned that dumping and suing provides incentives to lie about the stock to drive the price down, that's fraud under current law.

I wish Yahya would finally focus on the real issues in dumping and suing rather than diverting attention by overbroad claims of manipulation and fraud. Moreover, consider that a rule broadly charactering undisclosed material information (in this case, about the intent to sue) as fraud could seriously extend the reach of the fraud laws. We have to remember that a rule intended to "catch" the people we don't like could end up "catching" those we do.

I know that trial lawyers aren't cool in some circles. But let's make sure the weapons we fashion against them don't circle back on the rest of us.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c88c69e200e55054417c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dumping and suing yet again:

» Short selling, Enron and Jamie Olis from Houston's Clear Thinkers
Now that title got your attention, didn't it? ;^) Selling stocks short receives a bad rap generally because it generates profits from misfortune -- i.e., when the stock price goes down -- which is counter-intuitive to how most folks believe... [Read More]

» Short selling, Enron and Jamie Olis from Houston's Clear Thinkers
Now that title got your attention, didn't it? ;^) Selling stocks short receives a bad rap generally because it generates profits from misfortune -- i.e., when the stock price goes down -- which is counter-intuitive to how most folks believe... [Read More]

» Yahya, "Dumping and Suing" from PointOfLaw Forum
The week before last, on Jan. 24, University of Alberta lawprof Moin Yahya addressed a Manhattan Institute lunch crowd in New York to discuss his paper diagnosing a problem with securities class litigation -- namely, cozy relations between class lawyer... [Read More]

» Short Selling Plaintiffs? Illegal or Should it be? from PointOfLaw Featured Discussion
Introduction and Background I would like thank Jim Copland for inviting me to this discussion. I would also like to thank Larry Ribstein for agreeing to discuss this subject with an old student from his former place of employment –... [Read More]

» Selling short: response from PointOfLaw Featured Discussion
Thanks to Jim Copland and the Manhattan Institute for inviting this debate between me and Moin Yahya over dumping and suing, which started over at my blog. I hope to show that this relatively narrow issue has broader implications for... [Read More]

» Selling short: response from PointOfLaw Featured Discussion
Thanks to Jim Copland and the Manhattan Institute for inviting this debate between me and Moin Yahya over dumping and suing, which started over at my blog. I hope to show that this relatively narrow issue has broader implications for... [Read More]

Comments

Why isn't a trial lawyer who claims to representative for a class a fiduciary for the class. Shouldn't he be required to report and hold for the class the trading profits he makes as their reprentative?

Yahya dials with trading before the suit, and therefore before the creation of any fiduciary relationship. But there still may be an obligation to disclose the trading in connection with the court's determination of the class representative.

"Yahya dials with trading before the suit, and therefore before the creation of any fiduciary relationship."

I think that is excsivley formalistic. I think the fiduciary relationship should be deemed to begin when the lawyer begins to prepare the pleadings.

This is a minor point, but why call this 'dumping' rather than shorting (or short-selling)?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.