Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Due Process Discontents In Mass-Tort Bankruptcy, J. Maria Glover
Due Process Discontents In Mass-Tort Bankruptcy, J. Maria Glover
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
No abstract provided.
Mass Litigation Governance In The Post-Class Action Era: The Problems And Promise Of Non-Removable State Actions In Multi-District Litigation, J. Maria Glover
Mass Litigation Governance In The Post-Class Action Era: The Problems And Promise Of Non-Removable State Actions In Multi-District Litigation, J. Maria Glover
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Given a string of decisions restricting the use and availability of the class action device, the world of mass litigation may well be moving into a post-class action era. In this era, newer devices of aggregation—perhaps principally among them multi-district litigation (“MDL”)—increasingly will be called upon to meet the age-old mass litigation goal of achieving global peace of numerous claims arising out of a related, widespread harm. Indeed, coordination of pretrial proceedings in the MDL frequently facilitates the achievement of this peace, given the reality that cases, once consolidated in the MDL, often settle en masse.
However, one clear obstacle …
Judgment Day For Fraud-On-The-Market?: Reflections On Amgen And The Second Coming Of Halliburton, Donald C. Langevoort
Judgment Day For Fraud-On-The-Market?: Reflections On Amgen And The Second Coming Of Halliburton, Donald C. Langevoort
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In November 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Halliburton litigation to reconsider, and perhaps overrule, its seminal decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. Basic legitimated the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, making securities class actions for claims of false corporate publicity viable, and such cases have become the central mechanisms for private securities fraud litigation. This move came after last Term’s Amgen decision, where four justices signaled their doubts about Basic. This essay looks at the connection between Amgen and the continuing viability of fraud-on-the-market litigation. How Halliburton comes out will likely depend on how the Court …
Amicus Briefs Of The National Association Of Consumer Advocates In Day V. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), Brian Wolfman
Amicus Briefs Of The National Association Of Consumer Advocates In Day V. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), Brian Wolfman
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
These amicus briefs are likely to interest legal academics and practitioners who write, research, and practice in the areas of (1) federal courts, (2) class actions, (3) separation of powers, (4) constitutional law more generally, and (4) federal litigation.
In Day v. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), an absent class member objected to a class-action settlement. The objector argued that the settlement was unfair because, among other reasons, it provided no monetary recovery to the class members. In the district court, prior to class certification and settlement, the defendants and the named plaintiff had consented …
Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman
Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The idea for this article came from the author's representation of a national non-profit consumer rights organization in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement. The organization's appellate briefs argued that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ views, the settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" (which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)). The district court also deferred to the lawyers' reputations as talented and honest lawyers.
In this article, …
Preventing The Subversion Of Devlin V. Scardelletti, Brian Wolfman
Preventing The Subversion Of Devlin V. Scardelletti, Brian Wolfman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Devlin v. Scardelletti that objecting class members could appeal a federal district court’s approval of a class settlement without first intervening in the litigation. Public interest lawyer Brian Wolfman says the ruling was a victory for both objectors and the integrity of class action procedure: Objectors, he argues, help keep fairness hearings fair.
But a number of courts are now ruling that Devlin only applies to non-opt-out class actions, rather than the much more numerous ones that give class members opt-out rights. In this article, Wolfman details the exact wording of the …