49 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,955 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
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,550 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,347 times 307 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
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
Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.
396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 998 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"
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"
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)
Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp.
222 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 685 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"
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”
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,939 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 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,465 times 48 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,113 times 85 Legal Analyses
Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing
Section 77 - Discrimination against neutral Americans in time of war
15 U.S.C. § 77 Cited 1,802 times 12 Legal Analyses
Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"
Section 230.174 - Delivery of prospectus by dealers; exemptions under section 4(3) of the Act
17 C.F.R. § 230.174 Cited 20 times
The obligations of a dealer (including an underwriter no longer acting as an underwriter in respect of the security involved in such transactions) to deliver a prospectus in transactions in a security as to which a registration statement has been filed taking place prior to the expiration of the 40- or 90-day period specified in section 4(3) of the Act after the effective date of such registration statement or prior to the expiration of such period after the first date upon which the security was

In Re: Refco Securities Litigation

49 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 the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

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 to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"

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

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

Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"

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

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 courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"