Monday, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, holding that the generic nature of an alleged misrepresentation may be important evidence of price impact to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance and thus should be considered at class certification.

The decision provides defendants facing securities fraud class actions – particularly so-called “inflation maintenance” cases – with an important tool to defeat class certification.


Continue Reading A New Avenue for Defendants in Securities Fraud Class Actions: Supreme Court Holds “Generic” Nature of Statements Is “Important Evidence” of Price Impact at Class Certification

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision recently in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC (“Olean Wholesale”), confirming that district courts must rigorously examine competing expert evidence when determining whether the requirements of class certification have been satisfied.

In Olean Wholesale, litigation related

Earlier this week, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits in rejecting administrative feasibility as a prerequisite to certification under Rule 23, deepening a split with the First, Third, and Fourth Circuits.  In Cherry v. Dometic Corporation, the court reversed the district court’s denial of class certification based on administrative

When and how can a defendant in a putative class action defeat a proposed class?  Defendants served with class action complaints frequently struggle with this question.  Typically, defendants wait until class certification briefing following lengthy discovery to contest class treatment.  This waiting game carries a high cost – discovery in class action cases is usually

McGuireWoods Fintech industry team leader David Reidy and appellate litigator Jonathan Urick bring us this succinct analysis of the Supreme Court’s hotly anticipated decision on the doctrine of “equitable tolling” in class actions:

Class-action plaintiffs cannot toll the statute of limitations indefinitely by filing copycat class actions until certification sticks, the U.S. Supreme Court held

2017 was an unusually eventful year for lawyers who track the ascertainability requirement, which had, for the last five or so years, become a staple argument for class action defendants.  Here are the top issues that class action litigators had to contend with.

Circuit split on administrative feasibility.

This year, both the Second and

Chicago-based litigators Sarah Zielinski and Jason Chrestionson bring us an update on the issue of individualized inquiry and Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement under the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Earlier this year, the Northern District of Illinois declined to certify a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action even though

Washington, DC-based litigator James Freije brings us an analysis of the Supreme Court’s latest class certification decision.

Resolving a current split amongst multiple federal circuits, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker that federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review orders denying class certification after plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their

Richard C. Beaulieu reports below on the Iowa Supreme Court’s affirmation of the trial court’s order certifying a class of individuals asserting claims against a corn milling facility based on allegations of air pollution.

Over the past two decades, large agricultural operations have become a popular target for plaintiffs’ attorneys.  Bringing claims under common law