By Dan McCue

The U.S. Supreme Court’s slight shift to the right this past session paid unexpected dividends to businesses, giving them “another arrow in the quiver to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits,” said one business attorney.

“Of course, there will be some who think this is the worst Supreme Court in history because of some of the close, pro-business decisions they made this year,” said attorney Bobby Pearce of the Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough law firm.

“But I certainly don’t believe the pendulum has swung to the point that it is protecting the negligent makers of dangerous products or reckless behavior by management,” he said.

The High Court decided a total of 68 cases during the term that began last Oct. 2 and ended June 28, and, while that was the second fewest cases the court has decided since 1953, the year also saw a continuation of a years-long rise in the number of business cases that made its docket.

Unlike other cases that traverse the landmine-strewn battlefields of ideology, the High Court achieved a collegial consensus on the vast majority of business-related cases that came before it. More than 70% of the 30 business-related cases were decided by majority votes of 7-2 or better.

“This year, our 30th representing the business community before the High Court, was our best Supreme Court term ever,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the legal arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Of the 15 cases decided this term in which the chamber took a position, the court sided with the chamber 13 times.

“In case after case, the court this term understood the business community’s need for clarity and predictability in the law,” Conrad stated.

A pair of cases made it more difficult to sue companies and their directors.

In Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., No. 06-484, the court ruled 8-to-1 that shareholders must show cogent and compelling evidence of intent to defraud in order to withstand dismissal of their lawsuit.

In the second case, Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing, No. 05-1157, the court voted 7-to-1 to dismiss a shareholders’ antitrust suit that accused 10 leading investment banks of conspiring to fix the prices and terms for initial public offerings.

The court held that the challenged behavior fell within the regulatory domain of the Securities and Exchange Commission, making the banks generally immune from antitrust liability.