A Texas appeals court on Friday denied JC Penney Co. Inc.'s request to overturn a $3.1 million attorneys' fee award approved by a trial judge in a shareholder derivative suit against the retailer alleging an improper executive compensation scheme.
A California federal judge on Friday threw out a proposed class action accusing First Alert Inc. of selling defective smoke alarms, finding that the plaintiff failed to back up her claim that the product’s packaging omitted important safety information.
A California federal judge on Friday granted final approval to in-flight caterer Sky Chefs Inc.’s $1.75 million deal to settle a class action alleging it underpaid thousands of employees, overcoming concerns about the thoroughness of plaintiffs’ counsel to rule the settlement is fair.
A California federal judge found Friday that a decision by HSBC Bank USA NA and Capital One NA to apply a credit card payment to a balance with a lower annual percentage rate hadn’t violated consumer protection laws, tossing two cardholders' putative class action with prejudice.
A New York federal judge on Friday signed off on a proposed $95 million deal to end a putative class action alleging Morgan Stanley & Co. misled institutional investors about shoddy subprime mortgage-backed securities, including about $17.2 million in attorneys' fees and expenses.
A New Jersey federal judge on Friday denied class certification in a suit accusing Nissan North America Inc. of concealing defective transmissions, saying that all of the claims raised by the named plaintiffs in the suit have been curbed for being untimely and unsupported by evidence.
A California federal judge has denied class certification in a suit alleging that Eli Lilly & Co. downplayed the withdrawal risks of its antidepressant drug Cymbalta, saying that the plaintiffs’ damages model was flawed because of complicating factors in the prescription drug market.
A California federal judge on Friday rejected Hewlett Packard Co. shareholders’ third attempt at a settlement in their derivative suit over HP's disastrous $11.1 billion Autonomy Corp. acquisition, ruling the deal’s potential release of claims was still far too broad.
A New York federal jury on Friday decided Wells Fargo & Co. owes $54.8 million in a class action accusing mortgage companies previously owned by Wells Fargo’s Wachovia Corp. of slapping borrowers with unlawful fees, defendants’ counsel confirmed, although plaintiffs had sought roughly $629 million.
A California judge on Friday granted final approval to a deal requiring the owner of Bare Elegance Gentlemen’s Club to pay $500,000 over claims by 443 exotic dancers that the club had illegally videotaped them and taken their tips, in violation of state labor laws.
A California appellate panel Thursday bolstered the Federal Arbitration Act's preemption in the Golden State, finding the U.S. Supreme Court's Concepcion decision and the state high court's Iskanian ruling defeat a judge's reliance on the Broughton-Cruz rule to deny Citibank NA's bid to arbitrate an insurance consumer class' injunctive-relief claims.
A California federal judge on Friday certified two classes of California student-loan borrowers who say Sallie Mae Inc. illegally charged them late fees, but refused to certify two other classes who say they were charged excessive interest, finding no evidence that Sallie Mae collected that interest.
A New Jersey federal judge has slashed a $1 million fee award in a $3 million class action settlement over thousands of junk faxes sent by Gann Law Books Inc., saying that the fee dwarfed the benefits to the class because much of the settlement will actually revert back to the publisher.
A California federal judge on Thursday threw out a proposed class action accusing Gerber Products Co. of misbranding baby food, citing a lack of evidence that sugar and nutrition claims on the products’ labels actually deceived consumers.
A New York state judge has approved a $1.85 million settlement between MetroPCS Wireless Inc. and account services representatives who accused the telecom of failing to pay them overtime wages, resolving New York and California labor law claims claims remaining from a federal collective action.
Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd. has agreed to pay $36.55 million to resolve a long-running putative class action claiming the carrier conspired with other airlines to hike air cargo rates during much of the 2000s, the plaintiffs told a Brooklyn federal court Thursday.
A California federal judge on Friday called Symantec Corp.'s bid to avoid handing over documents in multidistrict litigation over a massive breach of Target Corp.'s customer data “ridiculous” and ordered the antivirus software company to cough up details on the software it provided to the retailer.
A New Jersey federal judge kicked another lead plaintiff to the curb in a putative class action against Nissan North America Inc. on Thursday, finding the plaintiff’s claims alleging injury from defective transmissions were untimely and unsupported by evidence.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has granted engine maker Navistar Inc.’s request to consolidate 13 lawsuits in Illinois alleging the trucking company’s Maxxforce diesel engines are defective and lead to engine failure.
U.S. Bank agreed Wednesday to pay $6 million to a class of investors to settle allegations in New York federal court that it didn't cure clear defects in loans bundled into mortgage-backed securities that it trusteed.
Federal courts remain sharply divided on a fundamental issue in securities litigation — whether, after the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, class actions asserting claims under the Securities Act may be removed to federal court. A careful statutory analysis, however, makes clear that the SLUSA does permit removal of such actions, say Maeve O’Connor and Elliot Greenfield of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
The removal and remand saga in Doyle v. OneWest Bank FSB, a class action originally filed in California Superior Court where the named plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class allegedly harmed by lender-placed insurance, is but one example of the larger issues inherent in the ongoing interpretation of the Class Action Fairness Act, say attorneys with BuckleySandler LLP.
Jim Aana v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. should be used as a guideline for challenging the use of experts in "fugitive dust" claims under Rule 403 when expert testimony and other evidence of health and environmental effects have minimal relevance to a plaintiff's claims and risk confusing the jury while unnecessarily increasing the complexity and length of the trial, says Sean Patterson of Sedgwick LLP.
Recent high-dollar class action settlements by companies in the financial services industry, combined with the unsettled law concerning the scope of consent, among others, continue to drive a trend of new Telephone Consumer Protection Act filings, say attorneys with Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP.
Given the tenor of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett, it is not unlikely that the Yard-Man presumption will be negated, but also that the literalism sought by both parties will be rejected as well, leaving a fact-specific test where there is ambiguity in a collective bargaining agreement, says Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker & Green PC.
A California appeals court decision in a shareholder derivative action against the officers and directors of Deckers Outdoor Corp. confirms the long-standing position that defendant corporations have taken in Delaware to foreclose premature discovery in demand futility derivative actions — and thus precludes another avenue for plaintiff lawyers to escape Delaware law, say attorneys with Paul Hastings LLP.
While the Eleventh Circuit in Adinolfe v. United Technologies Corp. did not pass judgment on the underlying efficacy of Lone Pine orders or on the type of information they can require of plaintiffs, it did restrict the use of such orders before a court determines whether a plaintiff has stated a claim adequately in accordance with Iqbal/Twombly, say Michael Murphy and David Fotouhi of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
A district court’s Nov. 4 ruling in Allergan Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. raises “serious questions” for the takeover partnership employed by Valeant and Pershing Square in their hostile bid to acquire Allergan, with indications that such partnerships bring increased exposure to insider trading risks and potential stockholder class actions, say attorneys with Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.
As a result of a recent decision in which the Eastern District of Pennsylvania became the first court in the Third Circuit to hold that the attorney-client privilege does not shield an antitrust compliance policy from disclosure in antitrust litigation, counsel should consider advising their corporate clients to preemptively decide whether they want to shield their antitrust policies from production, say attorneys with Ballard Spahr LLP.
Two recent decisions by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District highlight the uncertainty surrounding the California Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Martinez v. Combs. Lower courts now seem to consider factors beyond those in Martinez when deciding wage-and-hour class actions, says Brian Lauter of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP.