69 Cited authorities

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
552 U.S. 148 (2008) Cited 1,181 times 80 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States
406 U.S. 128 (1972) Cited 1,627 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.
280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 674 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )
Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co.
267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 664 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding compensatory or punitive damages sometimes permissible under Rule 23(b)
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 874 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Klay v. Humana, Inc.
382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 553 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that where there were variations in state laws precluding a single class of doctors alleging breaches of contract by health maintenance organizations that systematically underpaid physicians for their services, subclasses could be certified covering class members applying the same legal standards
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.
960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 678 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant
Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc.
348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2003) Cited 442 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts may employ Rule 23(c) to certify a class as to one claim even though all of the plaintiffs’ claims, taken together, do not satisfy the predominance requirement
McLaughlin v. Tobacco Co.
522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 305 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that an aggregate determination that “bears little or no relationship to the amount of economic harm actually caused” violates the Rules Enabling Act
In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases
461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 310 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred by finding that presence of affirmative defense barred certification of liability class
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,931 times 1234 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

69 Cited authorities

Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )

Holding compensatory or punitive damages sometimes permissible under Rule 23(b)

Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant

Holding that courts may employ Rule 23(c) to certify a class as to one claim even though all of the plaintiffs’ claims, taken together, do not satisfy the predominance requirement

Holding that an aggregate determination that “bears little or no relationship to the amount of economic harm actually caused” violates the Rules Enabling Act

Holding that district court erred by finding that presence of affirmative defense barred certification of liability class

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"