Search Results (2232)
Documents on Class Actions
Show: results per page
|Split California Supreme Court Holds that without Express Agreement, Classwide Arbitrability is not a 'Gateway Issue' that must be Decided by the Court|
Robert J. Herrington, Adil M. Khan, Jeff E. Scott; Greenberg Traurig, LLP;
August 18, 2016, previously published on August 11, 2016In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court recently determined that the question of “who decides whether [an arbitration] agreement permits or prohibits classwide arbitration” is not subject to a “universal rule [that] allocates this decision in all cases to either...
|Supreme Court Ruling in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing: Antitrust Immunity for Investment Banks|
Scott Brodeur; OConnell Hartman Loder|Professional Corporation;
August 17, 2016, previously published by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell Counsel to Counsel MagazineLexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell Counsel to Counsel Magazine
|Fizzled Suit Against Target Officers and Directors Raises Question as to the Value of Derivative Claims in Data Breach Cases|
Kevin M. McGinty; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
August 16, 2016, previously published on July 13, 2016In a terse two-page order, Senior District Court Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed derivative claims brought against officers and directors of Target in connection with the 2013 holiday-season data breach. The dismissed claims, brought by Target shareholders on behalf of the corporation, alleged that...
|California Supreme Court on Arbitration Agreement Silent on Class Action Waivers|
Mitchell F. Boomer, Dylan Bradley Carp, Sherry L. Swieca; Jackson Lewis P.C.;
August 10, 2016, previously published on August 1, 2016Does the court or the arbitrator decide whether the parties to an arbitration agreement intended class arbitration where the agreement does not contain an express class action waiver? The California Supreme Court responded that there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer and the issue is a...
|Recent Developments in Petrobras Class Action Could Interfere with Trial Date|
John S. "Terry" McMahon; Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky Popeo P.C.;
August 6, 2016, previously published on July 29, 2016There have been several recent and interesting updates to the In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, 14-cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y.) that we have discussed several times on this blog. First, the Second Circuit has decided to accept review of the class certification question. Second, Judge Jed Rakoff denied...
|Dutch Foundation Dismissed for Inadequate Safeguarding of Members’ Interests|
Kevin Mortimer, Joel D. Rothman; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
August 6, 2016, previously published on July 14, 2016On June 29, 2016, the Dutch Court of East Brabant dismissed a foundation’s claims against Rabobank Group for alleged unlawful selling of interest rate swaps because it failed to meet the requirement of the Dutch Claim Code that a foundation sufficiently safeguard the interests of its members....
|Less Is Not Always More: The Court of Appeal Addresses a Consortium Carriage Fight|
Bevan Brooksbank; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
August 4, 2016, previously published on July 19, 2016The Ontario courts have developed a body of caselaw to address the problem that arises where multiple law firms seek to advance what is essentially the same class proceeding. The resultant “carriage dispute” confirms the simple axiom that two or more certified class actions cannot exist...
|Price Optimization: Courts Put Regulators in the Driver’s Seat|
Sutherland Asbill Brennan LLP;
July 27, 2016, previously published on July 25, 2016Earlier this year, courts in California addressed class actions brought by customers claiming to be harmed by their auto insurers’ use of price optimization and big data in setting auto insurance rates. In both cases, the court stayed the class action and deferred to the regulator under the...
|Indirect Causation Accepted by Australian Court in Shareholder Claim|
John Emmerig, Michael Legg; Jones Day;
July 22, 2016, previously published on July 2016The plaintiffs acquired HIH shares between 26 October 1998 and 15 March 2001. The plaintiffs contended, and the defendants admitted, that HIH had released misleading and deceptive financial results during this period.
|Contribution and Causation: The IPEX Case|
Bevan Brooksbank; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
July 12, 2016, previously published on June 16, 2016As succinctly summarized by Justice Belobaba, the case addressed the intersection of two lines of authority, namely that which permits a defendant who settles a class action to seek recovery from other non-settling parties, and the axiom that causation must be proven in order to establish liability.