American Pipe Tolling, Statutes of Repose, and Protective Filings: An Empirical Study
|
|
- Madison Ray
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship American Pipe Tolling, Statutes of Repose, and Protective Filings: An Empirical Study David Freeman Engstrom Stanford Law School Jonah B. Gelbach University of Pennsylvania Law School Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Engstrom, David Freeman and Gelbach, Jonah B., "American Pipe Tolling, Statutes of Repose, and Protective Filings: An Empirical Study" (2017). Faculty Scholarship This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
2 Stanford Law Review Online Volume 69 March 2017 ESSAY American Pipe Tolling, Statutes of Repose, and Protective Filings: An Empirical Study David Freeman Engstrom* & Jonah B. Gelbach** I. American Pipe Tolling and the Problem of Protective Filings In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 1 the Supreme Court wisely rationalized class action law and policy under Rule 23 by holding that the filing of a class action complaint suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action. 2 A contrary rule, the Court warned, would impair the efficiency and economy of litigation by inducing potential class members who want to proceed independently if class certification is subsequently denied to move to intervene or file entirely separate but essentially duplicative actions. 3 Tolling thus avoids putting injured parties to an unnecessary and unfair Hobson s choice: file a costly and duplicative action or risk surrendering their rights. That longstanding rule is now under threat by a case currently before the Court, California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities Inc., 4 that asks whether American Pipe tolling applies to so-called statutes of repose in the securities laws. Virtually all federal securities causes of action have a two-tiered * Professor of Law and Bernard D. Bergreen Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School. Both authors thank Peter Davis for skillful research assistance. ** Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania School of Law U.S. 538 (1974). 2. Id. at 554. The Court subsequently clarified that American Pipe s protective rule applies not just to class members who intervene in the would-be class representative s original suit but to all members of the putative class, including those who file individual lawsuits after certification is denied. Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, (1983). 3. Am. Pipe, 414 U.S. at In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & Erisa Litig. (CalPERS), 655 F. App x 13 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. granted sub nom. Cal. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Sec. Inc., No , 2017 WL (U.S. Jan. 13, 2017). 92
3 time bar: a shorter statute of limitations period governed by a discovery rule 5 and a longer limitations period, running from the violation, that is sometimes referred to as a statute of repose. 6 Were the CalPERS Court to affirm the Second Circuit s decision below rather than the Tenth Circuit s contrary approach, 7 it would render American Pipe s protective rule inapplicable to these latter repose periods. This Essay offers a conceptual and empirical analysis of a key issue that overhangs the case: the plausible quantity of wasteful protective filings including interventions and separately filed lawsuits that putative class members might make if the Court were to hold that American Pipe tolling does not apply to repose periods. 8 In Part II we discuss one potential approach the natural experiment approach used in the social sciences and in empirical legal studies scholarship 9 to estimating the expected number of protective filings. As we explain, the obstacles to such an approach make it unworkable in the present context. We also point to significant flaws in the primary study to which CalPERS respondent ANZ Securities points in an effort to blunt the concern raised here that denying application of American Pipe tolling to repose periods would uncork a substantial flow of protective filings. In Part III we conduct an empirical study using data drawn from a comprehensive dataset of securities lawsuits. We count the number of cases in which class certification proceedings overrun repose periods. These are cases for which a narrowing of American Pipe s reach plausibly could induce putative class members to make protective filings, whether in the form of interventions or newly filed lawsuits. We estimate that certification proceedings extend beyond the repose period in as many as half of securities class actions that reach a court order as to class certification and as many as one-quarter of all filed securities class actions. Of course, not all cases in which class certification proceedings extend beyond the repose period would yield protective filings. But simple math shows that even if protective filings are made in only a small share of cases where they are possible, the ultimate result would be a substantial spike in litigation in federal courts. Our analysis thus makes clear that the Court s affirmance of the 5. The discovery rule applicable to securities class actions delays accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the facts that will form the basis for an action. Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, (2010) (quoting 2 CALVIN W. CORMAN, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (1991)). 6. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, (1991). 7. Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155, (10th Cir. 2000). 8. See Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 721 F.3d 95, (2d Cir. 2013), cert. dismissed sub nom. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. of Miss. v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 42 (2014) (noting the concern about protective filings). 9. See generally, e.g., Jonah B. Gelbach & Jonathan Klick, Empirical Law and Economics (U. Penn. Inst. for Law & Econ. Research Paper No , 2014). 93
4 Second Circuit s approach risks undermining the core purposes of the American Pipe rule: to promote the efficiency and economy of litigation. 10 II. Research Design Considerations in Assessing the Importance of Protective Filings A. The Challenges of an Ideal Natural Experiment Approach One way to estimate the expected quantum of protective filings were American Pipe tolling held inapplicable to repose periods would be to use the natural experiments approach referenced previously. 11 The Second Circuit s June 2013 IndyMac decision the first case in which that court held American Pipe inapplicable to repose periods 12 would seem to provide an opportunity to use this approach. In principle, one could compare the quantum of protective filings across a comparison set of cases filed prior to the IndyMac decision in which the statutory repose period expired before IndyMac and a treatment set of cases that were filed before IndyMac but in which the statutory repose period did not expire until after IndyMac. 13 But there are several obstacles to successfully deploying this approach. First, IndyMac concerned only claims brought under sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act and so was merely the opening salvo among the Second Circuit s holdings limiting American Pipe s reach. It was only quite recently, in 2016, that the Second Circuit expanded its rule to the far more numerous claims brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b Consequently, many putative class members in cases filed in district courts within the Second Circuit would have been uncertain as to whether they would enjoy American Pipe s protection if class certification were denied. Such uncertainty would blunt any treatment effect of Second Circuit case law. A second obstacle comes at the intersection of the current circuit split on American Pipe s application to repose periods and the liberal rules governing personal jurisdiction and venue for claims brought under the federal securities laws. While the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits recently joined the Second Circuit 10. Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553 (1974). 11. See supra text accompanying note IndyMac, 721 F.3d at The resulting straddle method examining cases filed before a rule change, and then comparing the incidence of litigation events that occur before or after that change is a common means of mitigating selection bias. See William H.J. Hubbard, Testing for Change in Procedural Standards, with Application to Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 42 J. LEGAL STUD. 35, (2013). 14. See, e.g., SRM Glob. Master Fund Ltd. P ship v. Bear Stearns Cos., 829 F.3d 173, 175 (2d Cir. 2016). 94
5 in limiting American Pipe s reach, 15 the Tenth Circuit long ago took the opposite position, 16 and the remaining circuits have yet to decide one way or the other. This is important because the nationwide service-of-process and permissive venue provisions in the federal securities laws grant plaintiffs who wish to pursue individual actions outside of class proceedings liberal choice of fora in which to bring suit. 17 The absence of significant jurisdictional hurdles further blunts the treatment effect of the Second Circuit s changes in case law. If litigants who might wish to pursue separate actions can duck the Second Circuit s holding by filing suit in the Tenth Circuit or in the circuits that have not yet considered American Pipe s reach, then an empirical analysis keyed to case filings within the Second Circuit will understate, perhaps substantially, the impact that a Supreme Court decision limiting American Pipe would have across the entire federal system. Even if these problems somehow could be overcome, there is a third fatal problem: insufficient data. 18 As an initial matter, claims brought under sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act are not sufficiently numerous to generate reliable empirical estimates. 19 But even if we were to use the more numerous cases asserting claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the short time since the Second Circuit s June 2013 IndyMac decision would severely limit the available treatment sample. For instance, in 8 of the 75 cases asserting section 10(b) claims filed in the Second Circuit between June 2011 and June 2013, the repose period expired as to at least some putative class members even before 15. See Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., 821 F.3d 780, (6th Cir. 2016); Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 832 F.3d 1243, (11th Cir. 2016). 16. Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155, 1168 (10th Cir. 2000). 17. See Securities Act 22, 15 U.S.C. 77v(a) (2015); Securities Exchange Act 27, 15 U.S.C. 78aa(a) (2015). As to personal jurisdiction, most courts agree that plaintiffs suing under either the Securities Act (for instance, section 11 or 12 claims) or the Exchange Act (for instance, Rule 10b-5 actions) need show only that the defendant has minimum contacts with the United States as a whole rather than individual states. See, e.g., SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, (9th Cir. 2007); In re Fed. Fountain, Inc., 165 F.3d 600, (8th Cir. 1999); SEC v. Sharef, 924 F. Supp. 2d 539, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). As to venue, section 27 is especially permissive, rendering venue properly laid in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. 15 U.S.C. 78aa(a). 18. Stanford Securities Litigation Analytics (SSLA), which comprehensively tracks federal securities class actions, graciously provided data. See STANFORD SECURITIES LITIGATION ANALYTICS, (last visited Mar. 6, 2017). SSLA also provided the data for the analysis performed in Part III below. 19. From 2007 to the present, district courts within the Second Circuit saw roughly seven lawsuits per year asserting section 11 and 12 claims. Claims under section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act were also sparse, having only recently increased from a dozen per year nationwide to a few dozen per year more recently, fueled by a rise in mergerobjection suits. See Svetlana Starykh & Stefan Boettrich, Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2015 Full-Year Review, NERA ECONOMIC CONSULTING 5 fig.4 (Jan. 25, 2016), _Securities_Trends_Report_NERA.pdf. 95
6 IndyMac was decided, once more blunting the treatment effect. And in 13 of the 75 cases, the entire case terminated before IndyMac, leaving no possibility for any treatment effect at all. 20 We also face what statisticians call a right-censoring problem: in 32 of the 75 cases asserting section 10(b) claims filed over the same June 2011 to June 2013 span, the repose period has not yet expired even as of this writing for at least some putative class members. Restricting our treatment sample to only those cases filed after the IndyMac decision would fare no better. Indeed, in all but 2 of the 84 cases asserting section 10(b) claims filed in the Second Circuit from June 2013 to June 2015 the two-year span after the Second Circuit s IndyMac decision the repose period still has not yet run for all putative class members as of this writing. And in 21 of these 84 cases, the repose period has not yet run as to any putative class member, again eliminating any possibility of a treatment effect. These problems grow more acute and afflict more of our case observations as we move backward or forward in time from the Second Circuit s June 2013 IndyMac decision, significantly limiting the overall quantity and quality of available data observations. B. The Weaknesses of Opt-Out Studies This discussion shows that the most obvious natural experiment approach suffers so many problems as to be practically useless. In Part III below, we offer an alternative empirical approach. But before turning to that alternative, we discuss a different study published by Cornerstone Research 21 which respondent ANZ Securities cites for the proposition that the flow of protective filings will be trivial. 22 The Cornerstone study suffers from numerous flaws, at least when deployed in support of Respondent s claims about protective filings. First, the Cornerstone study tallies individual opt-out actions only in class actions that ultimately settled. The study therefore does not count protective filings in cases where class certification ultimately was denied or in cases that otherwise do not reach settlement (for instance, because of a dispositive motion). Such filings may be just as wasteful as individual filings in cases that settle. 20. One case falls into both categories, in that the repose period would have run as to at least some putative class members, but the case terminated prior to IndyMac. 21. See Amir Rozen et al., Cornerstone Research, Opt-Out Cases in Securities Class Action Settlements: Update (2016), Opt-Out-Cases-in-Securities-Class-Action-Settlements ; Amir Rozen et al., Cornerstone Research, Opt-Out Cases in Securities Class Action Settlements (2013), Opt-Out-Cases-in-Securities-Class-Action-Settlements. 22. Brief in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 21-22, Cal. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Sec. Inc., No (U.S. Jan. 13, 2017) (citing Cornerstone study). 96
7 Second, Cornerstone s study considers only separate filings and does not appear to consider interventions filed by putative class members in the proceedings in which class certification was originally sought. This is important because interventions may be a significant way putative class members will preserve their rights if American Pipe tolling is unavailable and can consume substantial judicial resources. 23 Finally, the Cornerstone study is hampered by its limited time frame in relation to the relevant Second Circuit decisions. The Cornerstone data end in 2014, mere months after the Supreme Court dismissed the IndyMac case as improvidently granted, 24 and two years before the Second Circuit extended its IndyMac decision to section 10(b) actions. 25 There is thus virtually no opportunity for the effects of IndyMac to be reflected in the filings used in the study, creating a severe version of the problems afflicting the natural experiment approach described above. III. How Many Cases Might Have Protective Filings in the Absence of American Pipe Tolling for Repose Periods? A. Research Design In this Part, we deploy an alternate methodology to measure the likely efficiency toll of a decision by the Court limiting American Pipe s reach. To that end, we use historical data to count the number of securities class actions producing an order on a motion for class certification in which the court s order granting or denying certification or, in cases producing multiple certification orders, the last such order came only after the applicable limitations period had expired. More specifically, we calculate the elapsed number of days between the first day of the class period specified in the operative complaint during class certification proceedings and either: (i) the date of the district court s order on a motion for certification (or, in multi-certification-order cases, the last certification order) or (ii) the date of the district court s order preliminarily approving the settlement class. 26 This calculation permits us to tally the number of cases in which one or more putative class members would have needed, in the absence of tolling, to take protective action in order to preserve the right to proceed if class certification were later denied. 23. Brief of Retired Federal Judges as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 16, CalPERS, No S. Ct. 42 (2014). 25. See SRM Glob. Master Fund Ltd. P ship v. Bear Stearns Cos., 829 F.3d 173, 175 (2d Cir. 2016). 26. Keying this calculation to the start of the class period is consistent with section 13 s language, which states that the limitations period begins to run when the security was bona fide offered to the public (section 11 and 12(a)(1) claims) or upon the security s sale (section 12(a)(2) claims). 15 U.S.C. 77m (2015). 97
8 We constructed two datasets from a comprehensive database of securities case filings 27 for the period One data set contains all cases asserting only claims under sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act over that period (as in CalPERS); 29 there were 86 such cases. The other contains cases asserting claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, whether or not those cases also asserted other types of claims (including claims under sections 11 and 12) filed during the same period; there were roughly 1200 section 10(b) cases filed during , from which we drew a random sample of 500 cases for analysis. We isolate cases asserting only section 11 and 12 claims because those claims are subject to the three-year limitations period in section 13 of the Securities Act, 30 while section 10(b) claims are subject to a five-year limitations period. 31 B. Results Figure 1 below offers a graphical summary of an analysis of the 86 securities class actions that asserted claims only under sections 11 or 12 over the period 2002 to The results are striking: section 13 s three-year limitations period, denoted in Figure 1 as a horizontal dashed line, would have expired prior to a certification decision in 73% (38 of 52) of cases that reached a certification decision and in 44% (38 of 86) of all filed cases. To provide more detail on the 52 cases depicted in the Figure that reached a certification decision, section 13 s three-year limitations period would have expired before an order on a motion for class certification in 11 of the 12 cases reaching an order resolving that motion. And that period would have expired before an order preliminarily approving a proposed class settlement in 29 of the 42 cases reaching an order resolving that motion See supra note We used 2002 as the front-end of our study window because data were not available for cases filed earlier. We used 2009 as our window s back-end because, at the time the data were collected, it was the most recent year for which nearly the entire inventory of filed cases had been conclusively resolved. 29. Section 11 of the Securities Act provides an express cause of action for investors in a public offering of securities that suffered damages by material misrepresentations or omissions contained in the company s registration statement. THOMAS LEE HAZEN, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF SECURITIES REGULATION 7:2 (2016); see 15 U.S.C. 77k (2015). Section 12 provides an express cause of action to investors who purchase securities that were sold in violation of the [Securities] Act s registration requirements. HAZEN, supra, 7:2; see 15 U.S.C. 77l U.S.C. 77m U.S.C. 1658(b). 32. Two of the cases in the sample of section 11 and 12 cases produced both an order on a motion for certification and a preliminary order approving a class settlement beyond the three-year limitations period, which explains why the numbers reported for cases for which the limitations period would have expired sum to 40 ( ) rather than 38 and why the numbers reported for cases reaching the two types of orders sum to 54 ( ) rather than
9 Figure 1 Time from the Start of the Class Period to a Certification Decision or a Dismissal Without Certification in Cases Asserting Only Section 11 or 12 Claims, This same approach also permits characterization of the efficiency costs of the Second Circuit s decision 33 to further limit American Pipe s reach in the context of the far more numerous claims brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, which are governed by a statutory five-year repose period. 34 To that end, Figure 2 below presents a graphical summary of the same basic analysis as above, this time performed on our random sample of 500 cases asserting section 10(b) claims. 35 The results are again 33. See SRM Glob. Master Fund Ltd. P ship v. Bear Stearns Cos., 829 F.3d 173, 175 (2d Cir. 2016). 34. See 28 U.S.C. 1658(b). 35. As with the prior analysis, keying the calculation of elapsed time to the start of the class period is consistent with the weight of authority among lower courts that 1658(b) s five-year limitations period is subject to an event-accrual rule that is, the date of the misrepresentation or the completion of (or commitment to complete) the purchase or sale of the security. See, e.g., McCann v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 663 F.3d 926, 932 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that the five-year limitations period starts upon misrepresentation); Arnold v. KPMG LLP, 334 F. App x 349, 351 (2d Cir. 2009) (explaining that the limitations period starts when parties commit to purchase or sell). 99
10 Figure 2 Time from the Start of the Class Period to a Certification Decision or a Dismissal Without Certification in Cases Asserting Section 10(b) Claims, striking: the five-year limitations period would have expired prior to a certification decision in 44% (135 out of 307) of cases that reached a certification 100
11 decision and in 27% (135 out of 500) of all filed cases in the sample. 36 To provide more detail on the 307 cases depicted in Figure 2 that reached a certification decision, the five-year limitations period that applies to such claims would have expired prior to an order on a certification motion in 42 of 86 cases that reached an order on such a motion. And that period would have expired prior to an order preliminarily approving a settlement class in 97 of 227 cases reaching an order on such a motion. 37 Using the above estimates and extrapolating to the 4355 securities class actions filed since 1996 provides a more general estimate for the set of cases filed over the twenty-year period from 1996 to 2016: Plaintiffs seeking to preserve their rights without American Pipe s protection might have filed protective actions in as many as 1175 cases. 38 Had even a handful of potential class members in each case done so as the end of the relevant three- or five-year limitations period approached, total filings, whether interventions or separate lawsuits, would have easily numbered in the thousands. This conclusion would hold even if protective filings occurred in only a fraction of those cases in which they might have. C. Discussion While some may try to argue that securities cases filed between 2002 and 2009 are somehow idiosyncratic, or that a sea change in the composition of the case pool going forward will render any backward-looking estimate an uncertain guide to the future, several considerations suggest that the above estimates are, if anything, conservative. First, the estimates do not account for the fact that a case can generate protective filings even if it never produces a certification order, so long as the case is not dismissed until after the limitations period expires. Figures 1 and 2 both suggest the existence of a non-trivial number of such cases these are cases denoted with dots that fall above the horizontal dashed line drawn at the 36. The margin of error for these estimates, calculated at the standard 95% confidence level, is ±5.5 percent for the first and ±3.9 for the second. In other words, the 95% confidence interval is 38-50% for the first estimate and 23-31% for the second. 37. Four of the sample cases produced both an order on a certification motion and a preliminary order approving a class settlement beyond the five-year limitations period. This explains why the numbers reported for cases for which the limitations period would have expired sum to 139 ( ) rather than 135. An additional two cases produced both types of orders before the expiration of the five-year limitations period, so that there were six cases with both types of orders. This explains why the numbers reported for the total number of cases reaching the two types of orders sum to 313 ( ) rather than See Alexander Aganin, Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings: 2016 Year in Review 40 (2017), Securities-Class-Action-Filings-2016-YIR (reporting more than 4355 securities class action lawsuits between 1996 and 2016). The 1175 cases figure was derived by multiplying the 4355 cases filed since 1996 by the above-reported 27% estimate of the proportion of cases in the 500-case sample. See supra text accompanying note
12 relevant three- or five-year limitations period. In such cases, a certification motion may have been filed but not yet ruled upon when the court granted a pending motion for failure to state a claim, judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment. Second, the above estimates do not account for the fact that, under the Second Circuit s approach, a potential class member s rights can be cut off by the relevant three- or five-year limitations period because of any defect that is fatal to a class claim, not just denial of certification. 39 Without American Pipe s protective rule, absent class members who lack complete confidence that they have canvassed all possible legal hurdles to recovery may make protective filings even after class certification has been granted. A third reason the above estimates are likely conservative requires consideration of possible dynamic responses by litigants and judges to a decision by this Court limiting American Pipe s reach. On the one hand, a decision limiting American Pipe would create perverse incentives for litigants to delay pre-trial and certification proceedings to cut off potential class members opt-out rights. After all, once the relevant three- or five-year limitations period has lapsed, a decision denying class certification would become a victory on the merits as to any potential class members who did not take protective action. On the other hand, a decision limiting American Pipe s reach might lead district judges to speed up their consideration of securities cases thus de-prioritizing other cases in an effort to preserve the ability of absent class members to make meaningful decisions about how to pursue their rights. Measuring the relative size of such competing effects is challenging. It is famously difficult, as empirical scholarship in civil procedure shows, to gauge behavioral responses to changes in procedural rules. 40 Still, our evidence gives good reason to conclude that the effect of the litigant response will equal or even exceed the effect of the judicial response. Figure 1 provides especially strong evidence in this regard: cases that reached a certification decision before section 13 s three-year limitations period expired tend to cluster just below that cut-off, making strategic delay plausible without American Pipe tolling. By contrast, cases that reached a certification decision after section 13 s three-year limitations period tend to be more diffusely distributed above that cut-off: in more than half (23 out of 38) of these cases, a judge would have needed to accelerate pre-certification proceedings by more than a full year in order to 39. The IndyMac case is illustrative, as the attempted intervention came after the district court dismissed some class claims on standing grounds because the lead plaintiff had not purchased some of the securities in question. Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 721 F.3d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. dismissed sub nom. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. of Miss. v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 42 (2014). 40. See, e.g., David Freeman Engstrom, The Twiqbal Puzzle and Empirical Study of Civil Procedure, 65 STAN. L. REV. 1203, (2013); Jonah B. Gelbach, Can the Dark Arts of the Dismal Science Shed Light on the Empirical Reality of Civil Procedure?, 2 STAN. J. COMPLEX LITIG. 223, (2014). 102
13 reach a certification decision before section 13 s three-year limitations period expired. Conclusion Our estimates strongly suggest that a decision by the Supreme Court limiting American Pipe s reach will undermine American Pipe s goal of efficiency and economy of litigation. 41 Empirical claims to the contrary, particularly where based on pre-indymac tallies of opt-out actions in settled cases, are an unreliable guide to the likely efficiency toll were the Court to adopt the Second Circuit s position. 41. Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553 (1974). 103
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-373 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. ANZ SECURITIES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Class Action Tolling Does Not Apply to Statutes of Repose
June 27, 2017 U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Class Action Tolling Does Not Apply to Statutes of Repose On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in California Public Employees Retirement System v.
Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons
Maryland Law Review Volume 77 Issue 4 Article 5 The Final Countdown: California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities and the Sweeping Ban on Tolling Statutes of Repose in Class Actions
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
15 1879 cv In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
Class-Action Tolling, Federal Common Law, and Securities Statutes of Repose: A Recommendation
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 46 Issue 3 Spring 2015 Fourth Annual Institute for Investor Protection Conference: The New Landscape of Securities Fraud Class Actions Article 8 2014 Class-Action
No. 16- IN THE. THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES LLC, ET AL., Respondents.
No. 16- IN THE SRM GLOBAL MASTER FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. Petitioner, THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES LLC, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-640 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Petitioner, v. INDYMAC MBS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the United States
No. - IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DEKALB COUNTY PENSION FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner, v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., ROBERT L. LONG, JON A. MARSHALL, AND TRANSOCEAN
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-373 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. Petitioner, MOODY INVESTORS SERVICE, INC., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-640 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Petitioner, v. INDYMAC MBS, INC., et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
1 ISAAC ASIMOV, A Loint of Paw, in ASIMOV S MYSTERIES 108, 108 (1968) (recounting the
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS ACTIONS SIXTH CIRCUIT SUGGESTS THAT INTERACTION OF FORFEITURE RULE AND STATUTE OF REPOSE CAN LIMIT AMERICAN PIPE TOLLING. Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc.,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: August 31, 2015 Decided: July 14, 2016) Docket No.
0 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: August, 0 Decided: July, 0) Docket No. 0 cv SRM GLOBAL MASTER FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BEAR
CalPERS v. ANZ Securities: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Securities Act s Three-Year Statute of Repose Is Not Tolled by a Pending Class Action
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Securities Act s Three-Year Statute of Repose Is Not Tolled by a Decision Has Important Implications for Class Action Lawsuits and Potential Opt-Out Claimants SUMMARY In 1974,
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-432 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHINA AGRITECH, INC., v. Petitioner, MICHAEL RESH, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case 1:09-md LAK Document 259 Filed 04/05/2010 Page 1 of 16. x : : : : : : : : : x
Case 109-md-02017-LAK Document 259 Filed 04/05/2010 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In re LEHMAN
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-640 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States >> >> PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, v. Petitioner, INDYMAC MBS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United
U.S. Supreme Court Holds American Pipe Does Not Permit Repeat Filing of Class Claims After Limitations Period
Corporate and Securities Litigation JUNE 13, 2018 For more information, contact: Michael R. Smith +1 404 572 4824 mrsmith@kslaw.com B. Warren Pope +1 404 572 4897 wpope@kslaw.com Benjamin Lee +1 404 572
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-000-MRP-MAN Document Filed /0/0 Page of Page ID #: 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAINE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. AMENDED CLASS ACTION v. CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
Case 2:10-cv-00302-MRP -MAN Document 222 Filed 11/04/10 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:9534 1 2 LINKS: 145, 146, 149, 152, 156, 158 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 MAINE STATE
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-432 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHINA AGRITECH, INC., v. MICHAEL H. RESH, et al., Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
No IN THE. ANZ SECURITIES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
No. 16-373 IN THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. Petitioner, ANZ SECURITIES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
SEC Disgorgement Issue Ripe For High Court Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com SEC Disgorgement Issue Ripe For High Court
Supreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification
June 24, 2014 Supreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, the Supreme
SECURITIES LITIGATION & REGULATION
Westlaw Journal SECURITIES LITIGATION & REGULATION Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 19, ISSUE 12 / OCTOBER 15, 2013 WHAT S INSIDE ILLEGAL TAKING 3 Calpers concerned
U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Class Action Tolling Does Not Extend to Successive Class Actions Filed After Running of the Statute of Limitations
June 12, 2018 U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Class Action Tolling Does Not Extend to Successive Class Actions Filed After Running of the Statute of Limitations Introduction On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-278 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AMGEN INC., et al., v. STEVE HARRIS, et al., Petitioners, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
Supreme Court Holds That American Pipe Tolling Does Not Apply to Successive Class Actions
Supreme Court Holds That American Pipe Tolling Does Not Apply to Successive Class Actions June 14, 2018 On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a nearly unanimous opinion in China Agritech, Inc.
Securities Litigation
REPORT Securities Litigation Inquiry Notice on Trial: The Supreme Court to Clarify Standards for Statute of Limitations in Securities Class Actions By Jonathan C. Dickey & Fred David III Jonathan C. Dickey
Case 0:12-cv RNS Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2013 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-61959-RNS Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2013 Page 1 of 9 ZENOVIDA LOVE, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-61959-Civ-SCOLA vs. Plaintiffs,
What High Court's Expansion Of FCA Time Limits Would Mean
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com What High Court's Expansion Of FCA Time Limits
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 559 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 905 MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD REYNOLDS ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ====== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:11-cv-04175-SJO -PLA UNITED Document STATES 11 DISTRICT Filed 08/10/11 COURT Page 1 of Priority 5 Page ID #:103 Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only TITLE: James McFadden et. al. v. National Title
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No
Case: 17-1711 Document: 00117356751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018 Entry ID: 6208126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 17-1711 JOHN BROTHERSTON; JOAN GLANCY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Missouri Law Review. Robert L. Ortbals Jr. Volume 68 Issue 3 Summer Article 5. Summer 2003
Missouri Law Review Volume 68 Issue 3 Summer 2003 Article 5 Summer 2003 Continuation of the Tracing Doctrine: Giving Aftermarket Purchasers Standing under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 - Lee
Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 13-1289 & 13-1292 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States C.O.P. COAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GARY E. JUBBER, TRUSTEE,
Case 2:13-cv LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01999-LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 13-cv-01999
1. Claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
IV. ERISA LITIGATION A. Limitation of Actions 1. Claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ERISA Section 413 provides a statute of limitations for fiduciary breaches under ERISA consisting of the earlier of
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 07-613 In the Supreme Court of the United States D.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P.; AND L.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P., Petitioners, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent.
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-791 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN J. MOORES, et al., Petitioners, v. DAVID HILDES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID AND KATHLEEN HILDES 1999 CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST
Supreme Court Rejects Argument That Section 16(b) Claims Based on Short Swing Trades Are Tolled Until Filing of a Section 16(a) Statement
To read the decision in Credit Suisse v. Simmonds, please click here. Supreme Court Rejects Argument That Section 16(b) Claims Based on Short Swing Trades Are Tolled Until Filing of a Section 16(a) Statement
Securities Cases That Will Matter Most In 2019
Page 1 of 6 Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Securities Cases That Will Matter
How the Supreme Court s Upcoming Halliburton Decision on the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption May Impact Securities Litigation
How the Supreme Court s Upcoming Halliburton Decision on the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption May Impact Securities Litigation In June, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether the fraud-on-the-market
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds: Sarbanes-Oxley s Perplexing Statute of Limitations
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-2011 Merck & Co. v. Reynolds: Sarbanes-Oxley
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 OPEN TEXT S.A., Plaintiff, v. ALFRESCO SOFTWARE LTD, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-jd ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 0
Case 1:16-cv VM Document 69 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 25. Plaintiffs, Defendants. VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
Case 1:16-cv-04923-VM Document 69 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x YI XIANG, et. al., USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN GALLEGOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA :-cv-000-ljo-mjs 0 Plaintiff, v. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant. CHAU B. TRAN, Plaintiff, v. MERCED IRRIGATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Montanez et al Doc. 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., CASE NO. :0-cv-0-AWI-SKO v. Plaintiff,
No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-290 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MICROSOFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1128 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ITT CORPORATION, ET AL., v. Petitioners, RICKY ALLEN LEE AND PAUL VERNON RIGSBY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondents.
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
Inquiry Notice: Merck & Co. v. Reynolds and the Need for Requiring Private Investors to Investigate Potential Securities Fraud
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 64 Number 3 2012 Inquiry Notice: Merck & Co. v. Reynolds and the Need for Requiring Private Investors to Investigate Potential Securities Fraud Joel Alan Borkenhagen Follow this
33n t~e ~upreme ~:ourt ot t~e i~lnite~ ~tate~
No. 09-846 33n t~e ~upreme ~:ourt ot t~e i~lnite~ ~tate~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER ~). TOHONO O ODHAM NATION ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
Supreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m A u g u s t 2 0 1 3 1 Supreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA Blake L. Harrop S States
Case 1:09-md LAK Document 685 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 14 : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 109-md-02017-LAK Document 685 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x IN RE LEHMAN BROTHERS
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1333 In the Supreme Court of the United States TODD TOLLEFSON, ET AL. BERTINA BOWERMAN, ET AL. STEVEN DYKEHOUSE, ET AL. AARON J. VROMAN, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
Case , Document 53-1, 04/10/2018, , Page1 of 19
17-1085-cv O Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 For the Second Circuit 4 5 6 7 August Term 2017 8 9 Argued: October 25, 2017 10 Decided: April 10, 2018 11
Case 1:12-cv LLS Document 134 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 27 JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Case 1:12-cv-06166-LLS Document 134 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR COLONIAL BANK, Plaintiff,
Securities Litigation Update
Securities Litigation Update A ROUNDUP OF KEY SECURITIES LITIGATION DEVELOPMENTS Supreme Court Clarifies State Court Jurisdiction for Securities Claims and Opens Door to Plaintiff Forum Shopping On March
Case 1:07-cv RHB Document 8 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-00648-RHB Document 8 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FRANK GLOVER, ) ) Plaintiff,
Paper No Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 14 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., Petitioner, v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT
LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER* I. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2007, the
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2014 Case Summaries CTS Corp. v. Waldburger Lindsay M. Thane University of Montana School of Law, lindsay.thane@umontana.edu Follow this and additional
2:12-cv DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cv-15205-DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 MIQUEL ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 12-15205 v. HONORABLE
Case 3:16-cv WHO Document Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-00-who Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 0 JAMES KNAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Joy Friolo v. Douglas Frankel, et. al., No. 107, September Term, Opinion by Bell.
Joy Friolo v. Douglas Frankel, et. al., No. 107, September Term, 2006. Opinion by Bell. LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - ATTORNEYS FEES Where trial has concluded, judgment has been satisfied, and attorneys fees for
ALI-ABA Course of Study Regulation D Offerings and Private Placements
427 ALI-ABA Course of Study Regulation D Offerings and Private Placements Cosponsored by the Securities Law Committee of the Federal Bar Association March 12-14, 2009 Scottsdale, Arizona Private Placements:
In the Supreme Court of the United States. LEIDOS, INC., FKA SAIC, INC., Petitioner, INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL., No.
No. 16-581 In the Supreme Court of the United States LEIDOS, INC., FKA SAIC, INC., Petitioner, v. INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Len Cardin, No. CV PCT-DGC Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Len Cardin, No. CV--0-PCT-DGC Plaintiff, ORDER v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-457 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MICROSOFT CORPORATION, v. SETH BAKER, ET AL., Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Dugout, LLC, The Doc. 22 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00821-CMA-CBS JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE DUGOUT, LLC, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-1190 Document #1744873 Filed: 08/09/2018 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, ) et al., ) ) Petitioners, )
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-80213, 11/09/2017, ID: 10649704, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 1 of 15 Appeal No. 17 80213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of
Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS
Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 12-86 In the Supreme Court of the United States WILLIS OF COLORADO INC.; WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; WILLIS LIMITED; BOWEN, MICLETTE & BRITT, INC.; and SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY Petitioners, v. SAMUEL
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
Case 5:10-cv HRL Document 65 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-HRL Document Filed 0// Page of 0 E-filed 0//0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 HAYLEY HICKCOX-HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case
In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-370 In The Supreme Court of the United States JAMEKA K. EVANS, v. Petitioner, GEORGIA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
Case 1:09-cr WHP Document 900 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10. -against- : 09 Cr. 581 (WHP) PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, et. al., : OPINION & ORDER
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 900 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------- X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : -against- : 09
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-640 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Petitioner, v. INDYMAC MBS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Applying Heimeshoff to Plans Contractual Limitations By J.S. Chris Christie, Jr.
2015 Applying Heimeshoff to Plans Contractual Limitations By J.S. Chris Christie, Jr. In Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013), the Supreme Court held that an ERISA plan s
A Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
Accounting Policy & Practice Report: News Archive 2016 Latest Developments Analysis & Perspective AUDITOR LIABILITY A Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Kareem v. Markel Southwest Underwriters, Inc., et. al. Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY KAREEM d/b/a JACKSON FASHION, LLC VERSUS MARKEL SOUTHWEST UNDERWRITERS, INC.
Case 3:11-cv DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00332-DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: January 30, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015) Docket No.
14 781 cv Cohen v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2014 (Argued: January 30, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015) Docket No. 14 781 cv x ELIOT COHEN,
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-126 In the Supreme Court of the United States GREG MCQUIGGIN, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. FLOYD PERKINS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Piped In: The Tenth Circuit Weighs In on Extending American Pipe Tolling in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v.
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 62 Number 4 2010 Piped In: The Tenth Circuit Weighs In on Extending American Pipe Tolling in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Boellstorff Caleb Brown Follow this
In The ~upremr ( ;ourt o{ t~r ~ttnitrb ~tatr~ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
No. 09-448 OF~;CE OF THE CLERK In The ~upremr ( ;ourt o{ t~r ~ttnitrb ~tatr~ BRIDGET HARDT, V. Petitioner, RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Case 3:09-cv JGH Document 146 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2843 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE
Case 3:09-cv-00440-JGH Document 146 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2843 DANA BOWERS, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO.
In the Supreme Court of the United States. v. ALAN METZGAR, ET AL.,
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States KBR, INCORPORATED, ET AL., v. ALAN METZGAR, ET AL., Petitioners, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
Emerick v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION WILLIAM EMERICK, pro se, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTHEM, Defendant.
Case 3:07-cv Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-00615 Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD KRAUSE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0615-L v.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0701n.06. Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0701n.06 Case No. 14-6269 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RON NOLLNER and BEVERLY NOLLNER, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SOUTHERN
No , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-364, 16-383 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOSHUA BLACKMAN, v. Petitioner, AMBER GASCHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., Respondents. JOSHUA ZIK, APRIL
Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 1140 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 11 : :
Case 1:13-cv-07789-LGS Document 1140 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X : IN RE FOREIGN
Case 6:12-cv MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986
Case 6:12-cv-00499-MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-00-JSC Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORMAN DAVIS, v. Plaintiff, HOFFMAN-LaROCHE, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -0
EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT. Comes Now, Carmella Macon and William Casey and moves the court to stay execution FACTS AND BACKGROUND
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 9/21/2011 10:27 AM CV-2007-900873.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION JESSICA
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 22, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1517 Lower Tribunal No. 16-31938 Asset Recovery
Case 1:08-cv JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-01289-JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DICK ANTHONY HELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 08-01289 (JEB v. DISTRICT