Keith Paul Bishop makes a nice point:
The problem with “fee-shifting bylaws” starts with the name. A better name might be “anti fee-shifting bylaws” because they end the fee shifting that otherwise applies. Without fee-shifting bylaws, plaintiffs’ attorneys are encouraged to bet with the stockholders’ money. This is, of course, unfair to the stockholders. Society also suffers because the current fee-shifting regime encourages skewed decision making on the part of plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Kindly go read the whole thing to see how he justifies his conclusion that "the current regime supports lopsided decision making that encourages plaintiffs’ attorneys to pursue cases that they would never undertake if the legal regime required them to bear the full costs of their activities rather than shifting them to the stockholders."
