## Facts

- Shareholders of Lum’s, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed derivative suits in federal court in New York based on diversity jurisdiction, alleging insider trading and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The complaints alleged Lum’s president disclosed confidential, nonpublic earnings projections to a Lehman Brothers representative.
- The representative allegedly passed the information to an employee of Investors Diversified Services, Inc. (IDS).
- IDS-related defendants allegedly sold a large block of Lum’s shares on the New York Stock Exchange before the information became public; after a trading halt and disclosure of lower projections, the stock price fell.
- The plaintiffs sought recovery for the corporation of alleged unlawful profits derived from use of inside information.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court sitting in diversity must use an available state certification procedure when state law is novel or unsettled, rather than predicting how the state’s highest court would rule.
2. Whether, given uncertainty in Florida fiduciary-duty law, the federal appellate court should have considered certifying the controlling state-law question to the Florida Supreme Court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that use of a state certification procedure is not mandatory; it is committed to the federal court’s discretion.
- The Court concluded certification appeared particularly appropriate given the novelty of the issue, the unsettled state of Florida law, and the federal court’s limited position in predicting another state’s law.
- The Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration of whether to certify the controlling Florida-law question to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Court did not decide the underlying merits of fiduciary-duty liability under Florida law.

## Legal Principles

- In diversity cases, a federal court may certify an unsettled, determinative question of state law to a state’s highest court when a certification mechanism is available, but certification is not required.
- When state law is uncertain, certification can conserve judicial resources and reduce the risk of incorrect federal predictions about state law.
- The decision whether to certify rests in the sound discretion of the federal court and should consider factors such as novelty, lack of controlling precedent, and the importance of an authoritative state-law ruling.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that state-law certification is a discretionary tool in diversity litigation and directed the federal appellate court to reconsider certification to obtain an authoritative answer from the Florida Supreme Court on the unresolved fiduciary-duty issue.


Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974)