Companies have the right to protect their trade secrets against public disclosure, while class action members (and the judges who must determine the fairness and adequacy of proposed class action settlements) have the right to know the potential value of their claims.
The Eighth Circuit has become the first federal circuit court to apply the Supreme Court’s Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) (Halliburton II) decision.
We speculated in September that a decision to grant summary judgment against a class member in the long-running In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. 5571 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) “could have implications for class members, but more likely for opt-outs.”
Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) recently filed a motion to dismiss class action claims alleging that Facebook sent unsolicited text messages to users containing birthday announcements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
The most common class-action battle in the real estate industry today deals with so-called force-placed insurance, which mortgage lenders buy when a borrower wrongly lets her homeowner’s coverage lapse.
I am committed to helping shape a system for securities litigation defense that helps directors and officers get through securities litigation safely and efficiently, without losing their serenity or dignity, or facing any real risk of paying any personal funds.
California Court of Appeal Affirms Demurrer to Class Allegations Where Mobilehome Park Residents Lack Community of Interest
In Schermer v. Tatum, 245 Cal. App. 4th 912 (2016), the California Court of Appeal affirmed two important principles for class actions in California: (1) to have a community of interest, there must be a wrong that is truly common to all members, and (2) class certification can be defeated on demurrer.
In its recent decision in Bradley v Eastern Platinum Ltd., 2016 ONSC 1903, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied leave to commence a secondary market securities class proceeding under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.
A California federal court recently denied a motion to certify a class of Kohl’s customers allegedly misled by false advertising, finding that plaintiff Wendy Chowning’s claim was a copycat of an earlier-filed case, Russell, et al. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 5:15-cv-01143 (C.D. Cal., filed June 11, 2015).