In our March 2011 report, we indicated that following the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were granted more frequently with leave to amend the complaint. We also noted that the opportunity to amend the complaint may cure the defect and change the findings of the study. The Advisory Committee asked that we follow the events in the study cases, determine the extent to which the respondents submitted amended complaints, and report the outcome of any subsequent motions to dismiss.

The economic turmoil that affected the global economy and markets beginning in late 2007 is well documented. This report does not seek to restate those events or evaluate the potential causes of the resulting recession. Rather, this report is forward-looking and considers the existing statutory schemes for resolving any future distress at bank holding companies and nonbank financial institutions. Specifically, it analyzes Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”; a list of capitalized defined terms used herein is set forth at Appendix A) and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Act”). The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AOUSC”) submits this report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act. This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center.

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules requested this report on circuit practices for awarding costs under Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The report describes the variations among the circuits' rules and procedures, compares how the circuits have implemented Fed. R. App. P 39, and presents a comparative analysis of costs awards. It also offers some procedural and conclusory observations from the research.

This report presents the findings of a Federal Judicial Center study on the filing and resolution of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The study was requested by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. This request was prompted by two recent Supreme Court decisions — Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — that interpreted Rule 8(a) by stating that a plaintiff must present a "plausible" claim for relief.