Alabama State Court Jury Finds For Defense As Merck Wins Another Vioxx Lawsuit

The New York Times reports that Merck’s defense team has won another Vioxx case, this time in Alabama state court. The lawsuit, filed by a 57-yearold man, blamed Vioxx for a mild heart attack the man suffered. The defense argued that plaintiff was a high risk for a heart attack because he suffered from “diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and was overweight.” Jurors attributed the defense victory to the fact that the plaintiff “had too many health problems before his heart attack to blame Vioxx.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 77z-1–Private Securities Litigation Under The Securities Act Of 1933

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against securities class actions, we provide the text of the Securities Act of 1933. Congress set forth the statutory provisions for private securities litigation in 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1, which provides:

§ 77z-1. Private securities litigation

(a) Private class actions

(1) In general

The provisions of this subsection shall apply to each private action arising under this subchapter that is brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) Certification filed with complaint

(A) In general

Each plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class shall provide a sworn certification, which shall be personally signed by such plaintiff and filed with the complaint, that–

(i) states that the plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing;

(ii) states that the plaintiff did not purchase the security that is the subject of the complaint at the direction of plaintiff’s counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under this subchapter;

(iii) states that the plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary;

(iv) sets forth all of the transactions of the plaintiff in the security that is the subject of the complaint during the class period specified in the complaint;

(v) identifies any other action under this subchapter, filed during the 3-year period preceding the date on which the certification is signed by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff has sought to serve, or served, as a representative party on behalf of a class; and

(vi) states that the plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of a class beyond the plaintiff’s pro rata share of any recovery, except as ordered or approved by the court in accordance with paragraph (4).

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Farmers Insurance Agrees To Settle California Class Action

John O’Dell of the Los Angeles Times reports that Farmers Insurance has settled a class action lawsuit filed in Southern California that alleged the company required the use of substandard metal replacement parts to repair vehicles damaged in a crash. The settlement reportedly requires Farmers Insurance to pay class members between $20 and $40 for each substandard part used in a vehicle repair, together with $17 million in legal fees.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

15 U.S.C. § 77y and 77z–Jurisdiction Of Other Government Agencies Over Securities And Separability Under The Securities Act Of 1933

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against securities class actions, we provide the text of the Securities Act of 1933. Congress provided for the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies over securities and for the severability of the provisions of the Act in 15 U.S.C. § 77y and § 77z, respectively, which provide: § 77y. Jurisdiction of other Government agencies over securities Nothing in this subchapter shall relieve any person from submitting to the respective supervisory units of the Government of the United States information, reports, or other documents that may be required by any provision of law.

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Fosamax: Over Defense Objection Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Rejects Defense Opposition to Motion for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Grants Motion for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits in the Southern District of New York After 19 products liability lawsuits – many of them class action proceedings – were filed against various pharmaceutical companies arising out of the use of Fosamax, a prescription drug manufactured by Merck and used in the treatment of osteoporosis, several plaintiffs’ lawyers (apparently supported by plaintiffs in all pending actions) moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Sutter Health Defense Against California Class Action Challenging Pricing And Collection Practices For Uninsured Patients Ends With Settlement

On December 12, 2006, the Sacramento Superior Court gave final approval to a proposed class action settlement, bringing to a close the defense of a statewide class action against Sutter Health. The class action, reportedly covering hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients over a six-year period, alleged that Sutter Health and its affiliated California hospitals charged excessive prices to uninsured patients – allegations that the defense vehemently denied. Under the settlement, uninsured patients may be entitled to receive 25% to 45% discounts off of their Sutter Health-affiliated hospital bills.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Digital Music: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Plaintiff/Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Finds Good Cause for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 as Requested by Defense and Plaintiffs Nine class action lawsuits were filed against Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America, Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc., Bertelsmann, Inc., Universal Music Group, Inc., Time Warner Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and EMI Music North America (defendants), alleging “on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers, that the various defendants illegally conspired to artificially fix or maintain the prices of digitally formatted music offered for sale on the internet in violation of 1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Series 7: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense and Plaintiff Motions To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The District of the District of Columbia

Judicial Panel Agrees With Defense and Plaintiff Lawyers that Class Action Lawsuits Warranted Centralization for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 Nine class action lawsuits were filed across the United States against the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and Electronic Data Systems Corp., among others, alleging “breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, and tortious interference with contract and/or business relationships” arising out of “errors in scoring the Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam, a computerized qualifying test required for anyone employed by a securities firm that wishes to register individuals as general securities representatives dealing with the public.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Alexander v. JBC-Class Action Defense Cases: Montana Court Rejects Defense Objections To Certification Of Class Action Alleging Violations Of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

Class Action Alleging FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Violations Based on Form Letters Sent to Debtors Warranted Class Certification Montana Federal Court Holds, Rejecting Defense Argument that Plaintiff’s Statute of Limitations Defense to Debt Collection Defeated Predominance Requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a debt collector seeking to collect on dishonored checks for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on letters sent to debtors that demanded fees not authorized by state or federal law. Alexander v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., 237 F.R.D. 628, 629 (D. Mont. 2006). Plaintiff’s lawyer moved for certification of the class action; defense attorneys opposed the motion arguing that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is not met and that plaintiff’s statute of limitations defense defeats certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

In 2004, defendant JBC Legal Group sent a letter to plaintiff seeking to collect $6.07 for a dishonored check that had been written more then 12 years earlier. Alexander, at 629. “The letter demanded that Alexander remit to Defendants $46.07 and stated that he would be subject to a penalty of triple the amount of the check, or $100.00, whichever was greater, if he failed to make payment within thirty days.” Id. A month later, defendant sent plaintiff a letter demanding $146.07. Id. Several months later, defendant sent plaintiff another letter demanding $146.07. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Initial Public Offering: Significant Defense Victory As Second Circuit Holds Federal Court Erred In Certifying Securities Class Action Against Wall Street Banks Arising Out Of Internet IPOs

Second Circuit Clarifies Standard of Proof for Certification of Class Action Under Rule 23 and Holds that IPOs are not “Efficient Markets” in Handing Defense Victory on Appeal

Beginning in 2001, hundreds of class action lawsuits were filed against Wall Street banks alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the initial public offerings of certain Internet companies. In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 2006 WL 3499937, *1 (2nd Cir. December 5, 2006). Following the consolidation of 310 of the class action lawsuits, plaintiffs’ lawyers moved for class certification in six “focus cases.” Id., at *3. Defense attorneys objected to certification of a class action arguing primarily that individual issues predominate over common ones; the district court granted the motion finding that plaintiffs had made “some showing” of the elements required under Rule 23 to warrant certification, id., at *3-*5. The Second Circuit reversed, agreeing with defense attorneys that plaintiffs had not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 and further that they could not satisfy those requirements.

The class action complaints alleged that underwriters, issuers and individual officers of the issuing companies defrauded investors through “tie-in arrangements, undisclosed compensation, and analyst manipulation” in connection with the IPOs of certain Internet companies, id., at *2. In certifying a class action, the district court perceived conflicting guidance in Supreme Court authority concerning the proper standard of proof required to warrant class action certification. Specifically, Supreme Court authority requires a “rigorous analysis” that may require the court to “probe behind the pleadings,” but a court may not “conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit.” Id., at *4 (citations omitted). The district court rejected Fourth Circuit and Seventh Circuit authority requiring plaintiffs to “establish the requirements of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence, even if resolving those issues requires a ‘preliminary inquiry into the merits . . ., or ‘overlap with issues on the merits.'” Id. (citations omitted). The court instead crafted an amorphous “some showing” test and, applying that new standard, concluded that plaintiffs had met their burden of proof. Id., at *4-*5.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized