Breaking News

In its August 20, 2010 opinion in Schleicher v. Wendt, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3271964 (C.A.7 (Ind.), 2010), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of a securities fraud class action and, in so doing, provided a withering critique of the Fifth Circuit’s approach to certification in securities cases.  Judge Easterbrook began by observing the defendants’ arguments against class certification (including that a company as large and widely followed as corporate defendant Conseco does not

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), was quoted by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne saying the following: “Corporations hate juries.  It’s the one part of government you can’t buy.”

In a decision that may spark Congress to pass legislation limiting contractual arbitration provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.,130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010), held that “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.” In this case, AnimalFeeds brought antitrust class action claims against Stolt-Nielsen, and the parties agreed to submit the issue of class arbitration

The conventional wisdom is that the US Supreme Court is anti-class action.  However, recent case law suggests otherwise. A recent example is a proposed class action called Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A., Petitioner  v. Allstate Insurance Company, 130 S.Ct 1431 (2010).  In that case, the putative class representative, a medical care facility, alleged that Allstate had a routine practice of paying bills late and not paying interest.  Allstate countered by citing a New York state