"Recent criticism of securities class actions has principally concerned the 'circularity' found in the damages remedy prescribed by the U.S. securities laws. The circularity argument is more correctly characterized as a number of related but distinct arguments. These circularity arguments are related in that they each emanate from the fact that a company’s current shareholders (or its insurers) pay the remedy for securities fraud to former and current shareholders. The circularity arguments are distinct in that the underlying economic basis for each argument can be analyzed and addressed separately."

Read the rest of the paper here.

Michael Comrie, et al. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., et al. before the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Civil Action No. 19254.

Charles T. Gholl and Michelle L. Gholl v. eMachines, Inc. before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Cede & Co. v. JRC Acquisition Corp., LLR, Inc. and 800-JR Cigar, Inc. before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 18648-NC.