Archive for January, 2010

Yesterday, NERA Economic Consulting issued a working paper entitled Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2009 Update.  The paper covers offers a variety of figures and statistics on cases being pursued, time to resolution, the values of settlements reached in 2009, the exposure represented by cases still pending, and the number of cases with parallel U.S. proceedings.  One key trend discussed in the report is the development of the law on “secondary market liability” provisions of provincial securities acts, especially the Ontario Securities Act.  For a primer on secondary market liability in Canada, see this article from Canadian firm McCarthy Tétrault entitled Ten Quick Tips on Minimizing Exposure to Secondary Market Civil Liability.

Read Full Post »

Sorry to all my loyal readers (I use the plural form optimistically) for my absence from the Blawgosphere during the past week.  During my hiatus, Ward Branch of the Vancouver, B.C. firm Branch MacMaster sent me a copy of this decision denying class certification in an Alberta case filed against a chiropractic professional association and a would-be defendant class of chiropractors.  The case had received quite a bit of press in Canada when it was filed, no doubt due in no small part to the catastrophic injuries suffered by the named plaintiff, allegedly as a result of treatment received from a chiropractor.  (See, e.g., this June 2008 Canadian Press article).  In addition to addressing class certification issues, the decision addresses some interesting issues regarding the duty of care owed by a professional association to the public for injuries allegedly caused by its failure to properly regulate its members.

Read Full Post »

Last week, I posted a short note about the Eighth Circuit’s decision in In re Baycol Products Litigation.  Here is a more in-depth synopsis, thanks to fellow Baker & Hostetler partner Joe Ezzi:

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court order enjoining state court plaintiffs from pursuing a class action because the district court had already denied certification of an identical class in federal court.  In re Baycol Products Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. January 5, 2010).

A state court putative class action was filed by George McCollins in West Virginia in 2001.  Bayer removed the case and it became part of a multidistrict action consolidated before the district court in Minneapolis.  Class certification was denied in the McCollins MDL class action, with the district court making certain legal conclusions concerning economic loss requirements under West Virginia law related to predominance.  At the same time, a similar West Virginia state court class action was pending against Bayer, albeit with different putative class representatives.  Following the district court’s denial of class certification, Bayer moved the district court to enjoin the plaintiffs in the West Virginia state court action from pursuing a class action because, as absent putative class members of the McCollins lawsuit, they could not relitigate the previous federal court decision denying certification of a West Virginia economic loss class.  The district court granted Bayer’s request for an injunction under the All Writs Act. 

The Eighth Circuit, in affirming the district court order enjoining the West Virginia state court class action, found that the West Virginia state court plaintiffs sought “certification on the same legal basis of the same class already denied in this case.”  In re Baycol Products Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. January 5, 2010), slip op. at 6.  Thus, “in the context of MDL proceedings, certification in a state court of the same class under the same legal theories previously rejected by the federal district court presents an issue sufficiently identical to warrant preclusion under federal common law.”  Id. at 10.  Further, relying on the Seventh Circuit decision in In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d 763 (2003), the Eighth Circuit noted that the putative class representative in the federal action was in privity with the state court class representatives for purposes of collateral estoppel based on allegations of adequacy of representation and because both putative class representatives asserted the same claims.

Read Full Post »

A colleague tipped me off today to a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a Minnesota federal district court’s order enjoining class certification proceedings in a West Virginia state court, following the federal court’s earlier denial of class certification in an action filed against the same defendant.  Here’s a link to the slip opinion: In re Baycol Products Litigation, No. 09-1069 (8th Cir., Jan. 5 2010).  The decision is in accord with a 2003 Seventh Circuit decision, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d 763, 767-68 (7th Cir. 2003), which also held that the relitigation exception to the federal Anti-Injunction Act “permitted an injunction barring relitigation in state court of a federal court’s denial of class certification.”  In re Baycol Prods. Lit., No. 09-1069, slip op. at 9 (citing In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d at 769).

Read Full Post »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers