The Seventh Circuit’s July 28th decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC has already created quite a stir.
A Byrd in the Hand
Practice area:
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
Authors:
Practice area:
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…
I am frequently asked whether a company sued in a putative class action in Massachusetts state court would be better off in federal court. Despite the common perception that class action defendants in any state are always better off in federal court, there has never been a simple answer to this question in Massachusetts, and it is even more difficult today than it was a few years ago. One reason for the difficulty is that the quality of judges at both levels in Massachusetts is very high. Unlike many jurisdictions…
When the Class Action Fairness Act was passed ten years ago, many businesses breathed a collective sigh of relief. No longer would the plaintiffs’ bar be able to keep their cases in certain magnet jurisdictions (a/k/a “judicial hellholes”) known for looking favorably on class action lawsuits. Many of the cases now would be removable to federal courts, where defendants felt that they had a better chance for fair treatment…
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…
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?
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…
Supreme Court Clarifies Defendants’ Evidentiary Burden at Removal Stage as to the Amount in Controversy and Halts Tenth Circuit from Applying More Onerous Requirements on Defendants
Authors:
Practice area:
The United States Supreme Court held this week in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLCv Owens that defendants removing cases from state to federal court, including class action defendants…
In early 2001, I was asked to argue in opposition to a class certification motion in federal court on behalf of the prominent owner of an automobile distributorship. The case was brought on…