National restrictions on private mortgage insurance (PMI) have been in place for almost 20 years, and most lenders and servicers rigorously follow them. But a recent decision from a Pennsylvania federal court suggests that some banks may have grown lax in that regard.
Defendant Gets Plaintiffs’ Tax Returns in FLSA Collective Action and Moves to Eliminate Some Opt-Ins—Way to Go!
This is an interesting case and a (possible) double victory for the employer.
Seventh Circuit Criticizes Disclosure-Only M&a Litigation Settlements, Holding That Supplemental Proxy Disclosures Must Address and Correct a Plainly Material Misrepresentation or Omission
In In re Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litigation, No. 14 C 9786, 2016 WL 4207962 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) (Posner, J.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a highly charged opinion critical of an unopposed settlement of a stockholder class action “strike suit” which provided “nonexistent” benefits to class members yet “sweet fees for class counsel.”
We’re all familiar with the basic requirements of Rule 23(a), with the focus most frequently on the issues of commonality and typicality under Rules 23(a)(2) and (3).
In Cyphert v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. (In re: Morning Song Bird Food Litig.), No. 15-3943, the Sixth Circuit imposed a high standard on class action plaintiffs seeking to use two sets of objections to a presentence report (PSR) in a criminal case against the corporate defendant.
A business subject to a class action receives a “without prejudice” letter from a potential class member offering to settle a small personal claim for nearly a million dollars, or else the writer will “go public” with the allegations and seek class certification.
On April 21, 2016, Uber tried to buy its peace from two class actions in a $100 million settlement with 385,000 putative class members.
Signed, Sealed, Delivered, but Not Dismissed: The Sixth Circuit Takes On Campbell-Ewald’s Offered Vs. Delivered Distinction
Following the Supreme Court’s January decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) that a defendant cannot moot a plaintiff’s individual claim by simply offering to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand before a motion for class certification is filed, but must instead deliver that relief, the lower courts have struggled to identify when relief has been delivered versus merely “offered.”
A Connecticut-based trading firm filed a class action lawsuit against 25 large banks, alleging they used their “privileged position” as primary dealers to collude to artificially depress the auction prices of U.S. Treasury securities at the expense of the Treasury and secondary market participants.
Bankrolling Class Actions: Court Rules That Plaintiff Must Identify Third-Party Funder of Class Action Lawsuit
The increasingly common practice of third-party funding of class actions, which provides tax incentives to plaintiffs’ attorneys and third-party funders alike, may no longer be protected under confidentiality agreements.