The securities class action industry was launched a quarter-century ago when the Supreme Court recognized the so-called "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance in most putative securities class actions.
Last year, we reported on the Second Circuit's ruling in Police & Fire Retirement System of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc. (pdf), 721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013), that the filing of a class action does not toll the statute of repose in the Securities Act of 1933 for would-be class members who later seek to intervene or file their own suits.
As I have previously blogged, my colleagues and I have filed certiorari petitions in two significant cases affecting class-action litigation, Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Butler (pdf) and Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer.
Today, Mayer Brown filed a pair of certiorari petitions that challenge efforts by two federal appellate courts to narrow the Supreme Court’s recent class-action decisions in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes to tickets good for a single ride only.
Today, in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, the Supreme Court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite for class certification in a securities fraud class action under Section 10(b), even though materiality is a predicate of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.
I previously blogged about the Second Circuit’s troubling decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co. (pdf), 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012), which invented a "class standing" doctrine allowing a named plaintiff in a class action to assert Securities Act claims regarding securities that he or she never purchased.
A recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court is a reminder that the members of a mandatory class—one in which the class isn’t guaranteed opt-out rights—sometimes may be given the right to opt out in order to pursue their own individual actions.
On Friday, the Supreme Court granted review in three consolidated cases: Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79, Willis of Colorado v. Troice, No. 12-86, and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, No. 12-88.