49 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,118 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,950 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 5,670 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
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
Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974) Cited 3,761 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
452 U.S. 89 (1981) Cited 1,418 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein
516 U.S. 367 (1996) Cited 527 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction provision sought "to achieve greater uniformity of construction and more effective and expert application of that law"
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"
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.
396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 755 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that decision to grant or reject objector's motion for discovery regarding fairness of settlement depended on "whether or not the District Court had before it sufficient facts intelligently to approve the settlement offer"
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation
391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 666 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that TPPs had standing to assert antitrust claims because they suffered “direct and independent harm” as a result of paying supracompetitive prices for the defendant's drug regardless of any injury suffered by the consumer plaintiffs
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,923 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 7,464 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

Porzio v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. et al

49 Cited authorities

Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

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

Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"

Holding that the Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction provision sought "to achieve greater uniformity of construction and more effective and expert application of that law"

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 decision to grant or reject objector's motion for discovery regarding fairness of settlement depended on "whether or not the District Court had before it sufficient facts intelligently to approve the settlement offer"

Holding that TPPs had standing to assert antitrust claims because they suffered “direct and independent harm” as a result of paying supracompetitive prices for the defendant's drug regardless of any injury suffered by the consumer plaintiffs

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