On July 5, 2016, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court released a decision in Fischer v IG Investment Management Ltd., which (among other things) denied the plaintiffs’ motion to examine certain senior executives of the defendant AIC Limited (“AIC”), and CI Financial Corp. (parent of the defendant CI Mutual Funds Inc. (“CI”)).
This post originally appeared on October 27, 2015, and is being republished as part of my series “5 Wishes for Securities Litigation Defense.”
For now, individual arbitration is still a viable option for avoiding at least some class actions.
Continuing our review of state green chemistry laws, Maine’s Safer Chemicals in Children’s Products Act primarily requires reporting the use of specified chemicals in certain children’s products based on risk and hazard criteria, although it may be used to restrict or ban use.
The recent British Columbia case of Tonn v. Sears Canada Inc., 2016 BCSC 1081, is an example of a trend in Canadian cases where courts are conditionally certifying class proceedings despite a plaintiff’s failure to define the class as required or dismissing the application with substantial guidance for re-application.
In April 2016, we posted about the lawsuit brought by environmental food and safety groups, along with fisherman trade associations, to reverse the FDA’s approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon.
Canadian courts have generally adopted a liberal and purposive approach to class action certification, and this approach has applied equally to the relatively new breed of class actions founded in privacy torts, see for example, Condon v Canada.
If your company must publicly file its service rates, you should consider attacks that plaintiffs’ lawyers have launched against other fee schedules.
Yesterday the Second Circuit reversed the approval of what was reportedly the largest antitrust class action settlement in history, valued at $7.25 billion.
Updating a prior post, on May 2, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its receipt of a $13.4 million judgment against the CEO of BlueHippo, after the Second Circuit overturned the district court’s determination that BlueHippo’s damages were limited to $600,000 in 2014.