U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg ruled on August 28, 2017 that a class of 24 to 25 direct purchasers did not satisfy the “numerosity” requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) for class certification. Florence Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 06-c-1797, ECF 1072 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2017), on remand from In
No Class?
A question of numbers
Class actions can save courts and parties a lot of time and money. But what if the class includes just a few members? How much time and money will the class action device save then?
The Third Circuit grappled with that “numerosity” question in In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2016).
The answer it gave — that a class with 20+/- mostly big members may not pass the test — could reshape how courts handle antitrust cases worth billions of dollars.
FTC Chips Away at Intel Dominance
The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition enforces U.S. pro-competition laws in tandem — and at times in competition with — the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Like its DOJ cousin, the Bureau seeks to curb anticompetitive conduct, such as price-fixing and rivalry-reducing mergers. And, more so than in the recent past, it has taken action to
Remote Buyers Qualify for Price-Fixing Damages in California, High Court Holds
The Supreme Court of California ruled last week that the Golden State's antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, allows an award of overcharge damages to people who don't buy directly from a price-fixer. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., No. S166435 (Cal. July 12, 2010).
The case involved pharmacies that alleged price-fixing by drug manufacturers. The