On October 2, 2015, we posted about the District of Massachusetts’ denial of class certification in a case in which we represent a building products company that sold allegedly defective decking. We’re pleased to report that yesterday the First Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ petition for review of the class certification denial under Rule 23(f).
Yesterday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Microsoft Xbox case to decide whether federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review orders denying class certification after named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.
Last week, the District of Massachusetts denied class certification in a building products case in which Pierce Atwood represented the seller of a composite decking product. You can find a brief summary of the decision here.
It has been a busy summer for federal appellate courts deciding class action issues. Amidst all the sound and fury, this summer’s decisions so far highlight two splits among the federal circuits, while also diminishing if not eliminating a third split on an issue that is currently before SCOTUS. Here is a brief summary of the ebbs and flows.
Recently, I had the privilege of moderating a panel in Boston discussing hot topics in class actions. We had a terrific group of panelists, including three (besides myself) who represent defendants in class actions and one who represents plaintiffs. This imbalance was attributable to the nature of the organization sponsoring the program as a business-oriented legal foundation.
OMNICARE: Supreme Court Clarifies Whether Statements of Opinion by Companies and their Executives are Actionable under the Federal Securities Laws
This week the Supreme Court resolved a split among federal appellate courts over whether a statement of opinion in a company’s registration statement can be actionable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 if the speaker actually holds the stated opinion. The high court ruled that such opinions are not actionable as an “untrue statement of material fact” simply because they turn out to be wrong. But, taking another “midway position” on a divisive issue of securities class action litigation, the court left the door open…
As my colleague Don Frederico noted in his January 24th post, a divided First Circuit panel recently affirmed the district court’s class certification decision in In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation. In so doing, the First Circuit weighed in on a critical issue that arises in many class cases: is class certification proper where certain members of the class have not suffered injury?
The First Circuit’s split decision last week affirming class certification in the Nexium antitrust case is sure to receive much attention in product defect class actions. Over the last several years, a chief battleground in such actions has been the import of the fact that many of the people that bought the particular product – indeed, often an overwhelming majority of those people – had no problem at all with it after many years of use…
In a November 30, 2013 post, we wrote about the District of Massachusetts’ class certification decision in the antitrust case, In re Nexium. There, the district court certified a class of c…