On the recordMarch 8, 1995
I rise in support of the Manton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton] on his amendment on fee shifting. I rise in support of that amendment. As reported by the committee, H.R. 1058 would provide for fee shifting when the court determines that the loser's case was not substantially justified. The bill, however, would require the court to order a bond from a plaintiff in a securities case. These are high hurdles in front of the courthouse door for any person, including those who have legitimate claims. Let us talk first about the bond requirement. This section provides no guidance to the court on the amount of the bond or the form of the bond. It appears to me that a judge could require a middle-class plaintiff to post his or her house as collateral, or their retirement account, or the children's college savings as collateral. That is a high admission fee to the Federal courts. I would remind my colleagues, the requirement for the bond is mandatory. It is absolute.
Source
govinfo.gov




