In Ontario, the motion for leave to commence a claim under the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”) is usually heard at the same time as the certification motion in a prospective class action.
In a recent food mislabeling case, Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit finding the plaintiffs’ claims to be implausible as a matter of law.
If you read this blog, you have an interest in the very exciting subject of class actions against insurance companies. Either that or, more likely, it’s useful to your job to read the blog.
Have you read any of the following lately?
In recent months, there have been a number of securities class action lawsuits filed based on alleged misrepresentations of the defendant company’s environmental compliance.
Plaintiffs, when faced with a legal bar to traditional negligence claims, frequently try to cloak them in new theories of liability. This tactic is reminiscent of dialogue in William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things “are” is truly important.
The plaintiffs’ theory of harm drove a recent decision from the Central District of California certifying a nationwide class of purchasers of ten homeopathic products. Allen v. Hyland’s Inc., Case No. 12-01150 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (Docket No. 291).
Off-the-clock cases involving call centers have been in vogue for a number of years despite lingering issues regarding whether they can truly be resolved on a class-wide basis.
Court of Appeal Rules That NYSE and London Stock Exchange Purchasers Cannot Pursue Securities Class Action Claims Against BP in Ontario
Today, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that a proposed securities class action against BP, PLC cannot proceed on behalf of Canadians who purchased their securities in the United States and United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal overruled the lower court’s decision. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP represented BP in the proceedings.
That’s not a typo! In a decision issued on August 8, 2014, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the parties’ $324.5 million proposed class action settlement as inadequate and denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval in In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-CV-0250, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110064 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014).