23 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,947 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,668 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 768 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith
259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 749 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that typicality was satisfied because the claims of each class member rested on a securities violation resulting from a uniform course of conduct even though each class member may be required to offer individual proof of damages
Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG
443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 598 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding "no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing"
Teamsters v. Bombardier
546 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 447 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “preponderance of the evidence standard applies to evidence proffered to establish Rule 23's requirements”
In re Flag Telecom Holdings
574 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 353 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs' evidence of news events and the expert's event study did not provide sufficient evidence of causation
Cordes v. A.G. Edwards
502 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 252 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that assignees properly stood before the court "in the shoes of" class members as "assimilated members of the class."
Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co.
254 F.R.D. 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 94 times
Finding typicality met due to lack of meritorious defenses
In re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation
587 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 88 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint alleging manipulation of commodities prices must always satisfy the heightened standard of Rule 9(b) because “market manipulation is inherently deceptive”
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,896 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"
Section 25 - Private rights of action
7 U.S.C. § 25 Cited 276 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over private claims brought under the CEA

In Re: Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation

23 Cited authorities

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"

Holding that typicality was satisfied because the claims of each class member rested on a securities violation resulting from a uniform course of conduct even though each class member may be required to offer individual proof of damages

Holding "no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing"

Holding that the “preponderance of the evidence standard applies to evidence proffered to establish Rule 23's requirements”

Holding that plaintiffs' evidence of news events and the expert's event study did not provide sufficient evidence of causation

Holding that assignees properly stood before the court "in the shoes of" class members as "assimilated members of the class."

Finding typicality met due to lack of meritorious defenses

Holding that a complaint alleging manipulation of commodities prices must always satisfy the heightened standard of Rule 9(b) because “market manipulation is inherently deceptive”

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"

Granting federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over private claims brought under the CEA