benefit doctrine in the context of derivative actions brought under rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tucker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 54,¶ 7 n. 2, 53 P.3d 947 (“Interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are persuasive where the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure are ‘substantially similar’ to the federal rules.” (citations omitted)); Barton v. Utah Transit Auth., 872 P.2d 1036, 1039 n. 5 (Utah 1994) (“This court recognizes the persuasiveness of federal interpretations when the state and federal rules are similar and few Utah eases deal with the rule in question.”). ¶ 22 Federal courts have applied the substantial benefit doctrine as a way of awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs in derivative Wal-Mart Stores, 54 F.3d 69, 71-72 (<HOLDING>). However, a substantial benefit must be
holding in suit brought by shareholders against corporation under federal securities laws that the promotion of corporate suffrage regarding a significant policy issue confers a substantial benefit regardless of the percentage of votes cast for or against the proposal at issue holding in suit brought by shareholders against corporation under federal securities laws that plaintiffs conferred substantial benefit upon corporation by vindicating statutory policy stressing the importance of fair and informed corporate suffrage holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that the trustee could not bring a claim against sole shareholders of bankrupt corporation where shareholders had not looted or otherwise injured the corporation recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action