The hypothetical "shareholder lawsuits" against Milberg Weiss apparently up for discussion at the WLF webcast discussed here add another data point to something that I'll just call "Litigation about Litigation."  (Item 413 on Carton to-do list: Call Pat Riley and ask how to get this term trademarked).

More specifically for this blog, we could even call it "securities class actions about securities class actions."  I know I am leaving some out, but in 2005 we've already seen the securities class actions against mutual funds for their alleged failure to file claims in securities class action settlements, as well as the supposedly imminent securities class action against CIBC claiming losses caused by CIBC's massive settlement of the claims against it in the Enron securities class action settlement.

Litigation about litigation?  Can't we all just get along?

With respect to the CIBC Litigation about Litigation, by the way, the Toronto Globe and Mail has this amusing take on that perpetual litigation machine:

While CIBC's shareholders may indeed have the right to feel like they're stuck in the intensive care unit without health coverage, the logic in taking this to court would seem distinctly fuzzy. If they blame the Enron settlement for hitting the value of their shares, what happens when their lawsuit is launched? Won't the share price drop even further? And when that happens, shouldn't they sue themselves? And eventually, won't they have to end up paying billions to themselves to have their own lawsuit go away?

In the end, CIBC's share price would be sucked in on itself and go into negative territory, a kind of financial black hole that only Stephen Hawking would understand.

If you have other examples of securities-related litigation about litigation, please submit them to me.