A significant development in Canada has been the increased number of prosecutions of securities class actions following or in parallel with regulatory proceedings. In the last few years, there have been several cases which have shed light on the interplay between securities class actions and regulatory investigations and/or settlements.
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., a case that has significant implications for securities class actions and the efficient operation of the federal courts.
Mark Twain famously said that “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” A recent decision by the California Supreme Court provides a good example of why.
On June 25, 2014, in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., Case No. B244412 (Cal. App. Ct. June 25, 2014), the California Court Of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed a trial court’s order dismissing class claims with prejudice, holding that whether the parties agreed to class arbitration was an issue that should be decided by the arbitrator, not the trial court.
The recent deluge of “all natural” class actions, about which we wrote in a previous post, continues to plague food and beverage manufacturers south of the border, in part due to the United States Food and Drug Administration’s lack of guidance on the definition of “natural”.