We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Addressing class action settlement objections–including
those made by so-called "professional" objectors,
government agencies, and public interest groups–has become an
increasingly important part of any class action litigator's
job. On January 9th, our co-editor, Casie
Collignon, and Bruce D. Greenburg of Lite DePalma
Greenberg in Newark, N.J., will teach a CLE program that
will review the trends in this area and outline
strategies that counsel can use to reduce the risks posed
by class action objectors. Their program,
entitled "Class Settlement Objectors: Key Preventive
Measures and Tactics," is hosted through
Stafford. RSVP at the link–but don't delay, the
early registration deadline is December 6th.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
After a year of public-private collaboration and considerable anticipation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST) cybersecurity framework for critical infrastructure has arrived.
All but a handful of courts find that companies disclosing privileged communications or protected work product to the government waive both of those protections.
It's a tale as old as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"): defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals sent out a fax reporting on the reclassification of its drug Levaquin for insurance purposes.
A trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant is limited by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Today, in Walden v. Fiore, No. 12-574, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "[a] forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum."
In Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification that was practically identical to a motion brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that was initially granted, but subsequently reversed by the Seventh Circuit.
Last week's Privilege Point described a Southern District of New York decision holding that a company providing information to the SEC about two internal corporate investigations waived privilege.
Class Action Trends – Stephen Gulotta, Managing Member, New York Office (Video Content)
