Search for: "INDIRECT PLAINTIFF CLASS"
Results 61 - 80
of 509
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2011, 10:07 pm
The panel held that the fee award so dwarfed the (indirect) relief for the class that it called for closer study by the district court. [read post]
18 Feb 2008, 4:22 am
Antitrust Class Action Complaint Failed to Adequately Establish Antitrust Injury thus Warranting Dismissal of Certain Antitrust Claims in Class Action Complaint for Lack of Standing California Federal Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against various defendants for allegedly conspiring to artificially inflate and fix the prices of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) in the market: plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of DRAM, and… [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 4:00 am
The Federal Court of Appeal would also have the Federal Court consider if a plaintiff could use the “notice and notice” scheme[5] to permit it to be used to allow the plaintiff to communicate with the class of allegedly infringing users via notices to the applicable ISPs. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 8:40 am
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that, rather than relieving plaintiffs of the burden of proving predominance before class certification, Basic establishes that a class may only be deemed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) if plaintiffs can prove the Basic prerequisites—i.e., publicity, materiality, market efficiency, and market timing--which, except for materiality, must all be shown prior to certification. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 1:14 pm
Plaintiffs in the various lawsuits – which were consolidated for pretrial purposes in the Northern District of California – sought certification of classes including “education” users, who use Gmail provided by their school, as well as other direct and indirect users (including individuals who do not have Gmail accounts, but send emails to Gmail users). [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 12:20 pm
S., this was one of the first times that a Canadian court had certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers in an alleged price-fixing conspiracy case. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 8:30 pm
However, the settlements do not include related pending actions brought by direct purchaser plaintiffs, including drug stores and the consumer class. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 7:21 am
The topic for Wednesday is the “cy pres” settlement, a frequent device in class actions that award trivial sums to a large class of plaintiffs. [read post]
1 May 2018, 7:52 pm
The petition also asked whether plaintiffs may invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption without direct evidence that the price of the security responded to new, material information during the class period. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 8:37 am
We then granted the plaintiffs‘ petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the prior order. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 8:58 am
The consolidated matter included class actions by the direct and indirect purchasers (wholesalers, retailers, consumers, etc.), as well as several actions brought by state attorneys general. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 1:26 pm
In doing so, the Court addressed the necessary quantum of proof for class impact in an indirect purchaser case. [read post]
24 Sep 2008, 6:15 pm
The plaintiffs in this case, however, have trouble recognizing this. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 7:05 am
Plaintiffs are all purchasers of potatoes – indirect in Wisconsin and California (e.g., consumers and retailers) and direct in Idaho (e.g., wholesalers). [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 9:59 am
The dual role of counsel in representing both a direct-buying damages class and an indirect injunction class did not bar them. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 2:38 am
In this case, the plaintiffs sought to certify a price-fixing class action against competing packaged bread suppliers and retailers, including Loblaw Companies Ltd. [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 10:02 pm
They fell into two groups: direct and indirect. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
The court held the class action suit failed to state a claim because Plaintiffs could not show statements made by StoneMor between March 2012 and October 2016 misled or materially harmed investors. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 7:14 am
The defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that because the plaintiffs are indirect purchasers, and buy the parts from retailers at the least expensive price, they failed to prove antitrust injury. [read post]
16 May 2012, 3:46 pm
In a bit of a setback to the defendants in the ongoing e-books cartel case, the New York District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a motion by the defendants to have the plaintiffs’ class action dismissed. [read post]
