A dilemma
A price-fixer cheats his buyers, but he may also do something worse — frighten them into doing nothing about it.
Last week, the Third Circuit made a ruling that will calm victims’ fears. Instead of bringing a claim they don’t want to prosecute, the court held, they may freely assign it to someone
We left off last Monday in the middle of something — the Seventh Circuit’s latest proof of its leadership in the law of class actions.
My talk of the Seventh Circuit surge followed a segment on The outsize influence of Justice Scalia.
Now let’s finish up with the surge before turning to the third and final reason class actions will rebound: Politics.
Continue Reading Three Reasons Class Actions Will Rebound, Part 2
Have class actions — after a steady decline under the Roberts Court — begun a come-back?
I believe they have. And I offer here, and in the next post, three reasons they will continue to rebound.
The outsize influence of Justice Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia disliked class actions. He advocated putting a spotlight on class
Extraordinary protection
Since 2007, wanton patent infringers have enjoyed extraordinary legal protection from awards of “enhanced” damages under section 284 of the Patent Act.
Last week, the Supreme Court stripped away three of the protections. The changes will make good patent cases better. But it won’t convert weak ones into strong ones.
Continue Reading Patent Cases Just Got Scarier
Big verdict
Hulk Hogan’s case against Gawker Media made headlines four times — but only twice because of what the jury did.
You’ll recall that a trial in Florida produced a verdict in favor of Mr. Hogan on his claim that Gawker had gone too far with a sex video. Jurors awarded the Hulkster (Terry
Scary case
After a trip to the Supreme Court and back, a massive case against 16 of the world’s largest banks for rigging the London inter-bank offer rate (LIBOR) — “the world’s most important number” — will return to the district court in Manhattan scarier than ever for the defendants. Gelboim v. Bank of Am.
On May 11, 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 took effect. The effect of its effectiveness? Almost all new trade secrets cases will either start in federal court, or they will wind up there once the defendant removes it from state court. Key parts of the new law include these:
Cause of action.
Last October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a study on how banks and other lenders use bans on class actions to save money.
The study resulted from a mandate in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
As I noted when the study came out:
In 2016, despite contracts that mandate
The Contingency will return to regular Monday posts on May 9.
The trial that has kept me busy getting ready for during the last several weeks settled last night.
A great deal has happened in other corners of the world of high stakes business disputes during the hiatus, and I look forward to jumping back
In Henry IV, Glenmore brags that he can “call spirits from the vasty deep.” Hotspur replies:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon Inc., No. 15-1396 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016), Groupon tried to summon a prior art reference from the Internet. But it wouldn’t come. The Internet proved too vasty.
Continue Reading The Vasty Deep (of the Internet)