On March 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in a putative class action against New York-based hedge fund manager Philip A. Falcone (“Falcone”), his advisory firm Harbinger...more
In Merrimon v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, 2014 WL 2960024 (1st Cir. July 2, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit became the third circuit court to approve an insurance company’s use of a retained...more
Given the opportunity to overrule its landmark 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, in which it created the fraud-on-the-market presumption, the Supreme Court declined. The Court found in its decision this week in Halliburton...more
On November 15th, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Halliburton case… again. While the Court’s original Halliburton decision concerned whether loss causation needs to be shown at the class certification stage...more
It has been 25 years since the Supreme Court announced the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). Yet many courts, including the Supreme Court itself, continue to struggle...more
In what it describes as an effort to advance the law of class certification, the Seventh Circuit last week issued a decision, written by Judge Posner, that many would say does just the opposite.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles , a case that dealt with the extent to which plaintiffs can avoid federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) by...more
Editors’ Note: This post is a joint submission to this blog and rennerclassactions.com.
In The Standard Fire Insurance Co.v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, a unanimous decision yesterday written by Justice Breyer, the Supreme...more
Editors’ Note: This post was originally published at rennerclassactions.com, and is reprinted with permission.
The Supreme Court recently heard argument in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133....more
The Supreme Court last week issued two opinions of major importance to the securities bar. In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. (2013), the court held that no proof of materiality was required...more
On November 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 1085, a securities class action, that concerned the ongoing question of what evidence is required...more