On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB [No. 23-970]. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to address, for the first time in over a decade, the exacting...more
Key Points -
The 9th Circuit, disagreeing again with the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 11th Circuits, reaffirmed that claims under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act do not require a showing of scienter.
In the 9th...more
On October 26, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted long-awaited final rules implementing the “clawback” provisions of Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act....more
On September 12, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, issued its decision in Acevedo v. CashCall, Inc., 2022 WL 4129106 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2022), affirming the lower court’s decision dismissing a Private...more
On June 9, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, issued its decision in Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc., No. E076240, 2022 WL 2071982 (Cal. Ct. App. June 9, 2022), which affirmed a trial court decision...more
Key Takeaways -
The United Kingdom’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) recently granted the U.K.’s first ever Collective Proceeding Order (CPO), on an “opt-out” basis, in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated &...more
9/13/2021
/ Class Action ,
Class Representatives ,
Collective Actions ,
Competition ,
Interchange Fees ,
Litigation Funding ,
MasterCard ,
Opt-Outs ,
UK ,
UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ,
UK Consumer Rights Act
On June 19, 2017, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the Supreme Court held, by a vote of 8 to 1, that California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain a nonresident’s claims that are...more
Facts -
On June 12, 2017, in Microsoft Corporation v. Baker, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review orders striking class allegations after the named plaintiffs...more
6/16/2017
/ Appellate Jurisdiction ,
Article III ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Final Judgment ,
FRCP 23 ,
FRCP 23(f) ,
Microsoft v Baker ,
Putative Class Actions ,
SCOTUS ,
Voluntary Dismissals ,
Xbox
The no-impeachment rule is that once a jury’s verdict has been entered, it cannot generally be called into question based on the comments or conclusions during jury deliberations. In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S....more