April 27, 2010 4:41 PM | Posted by Reddy, Kenya | Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court today issued a ruling that is sure to have a far-reaching impact on the future of class arbitration. In Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., No. 08-1198, 2010 WL 1655826 (2010), the Court held in a 5-3 decision that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not consented to it is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
|
October 16, 2009 11:01 AM | Posted by Morande, Dean | Supreme Court
Some members of the Court felt compelled in DTD Enterprises, Inc. v. Wells, No. 08-1407, 2009 WL 3255157 (Oct. 13, 2009), to note that the New Jersey court’s imposition of class notice costs on the defendant may result in a denial of due process where the determination was made entirely on the court’s finding that the plaintiff could not afford the cost, but the defendant could. The Court was also concerned that no consideration was given to the underlying merit of the suit. Nonetheless, the Court denied certiorari on the grounds that the order is interlocutory and the petitioner had filed for bankruptcy.
|
July 2, 2007 9:41 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Analysis, Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court recently held in a class action against a cigarette manufacturer that the cigarette manufacturer did not fall within the terms of the federal officer removal statute due to its testing and advertising of tar and nicotine levels in its cigarettes. Thus, the claim brought by consumers was not removable to federal court.
|
June 24, 2007 12:38 PM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Analysis, Supreme Court
In Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., No. 06-484, 2007 WL 1773208 (June 21, 2007), the United States Supreme Court resolved a disagreement among the Circuits concerning whether and to what extent a court must consider competing inferences in determining whether a securities fraud complaint gives rise to a "strong inference" of scienter such that it satisfies the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
|
June 19, 2007 9:22 AM | Posted by Kathryn Christian | Analysis, Supreme Court
Investors brought a class action suit alleging that members of an underwriting syndicate violated federal antitrust laws by agreeing among themselves to impose harmful conditions on potential investors during an initial public offering, such as anticompetitve, excessive commissions. The United States Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which federal securities laws implicitly preclude the application of antitrust laws.
|
June 5, 2007 9:30 AM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen | Insurance, Supreme Court
Does the term "willfulness" refer only to a knowing violation of a statute or does it also cover reckless ones as well? The answer to this question often has implications for class actions since reckless conduct, in some situations, can be subject to common proof, while subjective motivation arguably cannot. In the context of a Fair Credit Reporting Act class action, the Supreme Court resolved this issue.
|