Topics
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Privacy
- Social Media
- Taxation
- Real Estate Impact Fee
- Construction Litigation
- Sanctions
- Electronic Data Discovery
- E-Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rule 23.1
- Federal Rule
- Stock Drop
- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
- Impact Fee or Illegal Tax?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
- Class Actions Unconstitutional?
- Justice Sotomayor Speaks!
- ERISA and Federal Rule 23... Point 1
- Summary of ERISA "Excessive Fees" Litigation in 15 Minutes
- You Have to Love a Great Opening Line!
- What in the World Is Barratry and Why Do I Care?
Other KMK Blogs
Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
A criminal antitrust case involving two bagged ice producers that pleaded guilty to conspiring "to supress and eliminate competition" was recently concludeded in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. While KMK was not involved in this case, it does bring to mind a few key considerations for companies and their attorneys to weigh when faced with bet-the-company criminal and civil litigation.
ERISA and Federal Rule 23... Point 1
In an ERISA case pending in the Northern District of Illinois involving breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow them to proceed in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan under ERISA section 502(a)(2) rather than require them to certify a class under Federal Rule 23. The District Court in Chicago denied that motion based on the defendants' opposition, and suggested that the case proceed, not as a class action under Federal Rule 23, but as a "derivative action" under Federal Rule 23.1.