Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
(1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a diversity action, a federal court must apply a state statute requiring a plaintiff in a shareholder derivative suit to post security for the defendant's reasonable litigation expenses, as such a statute creates a substantive liability and is not merely a procedural rule under the Erie doctrine.
Facts:
- A stockholder in Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, a Delaware corporation doing business in New Jersey, held 100 shares out of more than two million, representing approximately 0.0125% of the outstanding stock.
- The stockholder alleged that corporate managers and directors had engaged in a conspiracy since 1929 to enrich themselves at the corporation's expense, wasting or diverting assets exceeding $100,000,000.
- The stockholder demanded that the corporation institute legal proceedings to recover the assets.
- The individual defendants, through their control of the corporation, prevented it from suing.
- The stockholder then initiated a derivative action in the right of the corporation to recover the funds.
- While the action was pending, New Jersey enacted a statute requiring plaintiffs in derivative suits who own less than 5% of the company's stock, or stock worth less than $50,000, to post security for the defendants' reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff's decedent filed a shareholder's derivative suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The corporate defendant moved to require the plaintiff to post security for costs as mandated by a newly enacted New Jersey statute.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, denied the motion, ruling that the state statute was not applicable in a federal court.
- The defendant appealed the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the statute must be applied.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court, hearing a shareholder's derivative action solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship, have to apply a state statute that makes an unsuccessful plaintiff with small stock holdings liable for the defendants' reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney's fees, and requires the plaintiff to post security for those costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jackson
Yes. A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the New Jersey security-for-expenses statute because it establishes a substantive right, not merely a procedural one. First, the District Court's order denying the security was an immediately appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine, as it resolved a critical issue separate from the merits that would be unreviewable later. Second, the state statute is constitutional; it does not violate the Due Process, Equal Protection, or Contract Clauses, as states have plenary power to regulate shareholder derivative actions to curb abuses like 'strike suits.' Finally, under the Erie doctrine and its 'outcome-determinative' test established in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, the statute is substantive. It creates a new liability for expenses where none previously existed and imposes a significant condition on the ability to maintain the suit. To disregard the state law would invite forum-shopping and create a different outcome in federal court than in state court, contravening the core principle of Erie.
Dissenting - Justice Rutledge
No. The Court's decision extends the Erie doctrine too far, improperly submitting control of federal court litigation to the states. While Erie requires federal courts to apply state substantive law, this statute falls into the 'procedural-substantive' borderland. The requirement to post a bond is more akin to controlling the incidents and methods of litigation rather than defining the cause of action itself. Such matters should be governed by Congress and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not state law. This ruling impairs Congress's power to regulate litigation in federal courts.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Douglas
No. The New Jersey statute should not be applied in federal court because it is a procedural regulation. The law does not add to or subtract from the underlying cause of action belonging to the corporation; it merely prescribes the method by which a stockholder may enforce that cause of action. Such a rule, like statutes governing security for costs, regulates only the procedure for instituting a suit. Therefore, it does not fall under the Erie principle, and the federal court should instead apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs the procedure for derivative actions in federal courts.
Analysis:
This case is significant for two major legal doctrines. First, it formally established the 'collateral order doctrine,' creating a narrow exception to the final judgment rule that allows for immediate appeal of certain interlocutory orders that are separate from the merits and too important to defer. Second, it substantially reinforced and clarified the 'outcome-determinative' test for the Erie doctrine, holding that state laws creating new liabilities or imposing significant financial conditions on litigation are 'substantive' and must be applied by federal courts in diversity cases. This decision pushed federal courts to more closely mirror state court practices to prevent different outcomes based solely on the choice of forum.
