Carl Hittinger discusses recent antitrust litigation in a price-fixing class action suit against universities, and finds that the Sherman Act is broad, and its exemptions narrow, such that it applies similarly in the educational as in the business setting.
A panel of corporate advisors updated their 2017 survey of securities litigation involving development-stage biotech companies, providing important practice points for the institutional investor and concluding that biotech start-ups do not pose a greater securities class action risk compared to other companies. Stronger cases involved plaintiffs making credible allegations that defendants intentionally misrepresented data or facts about their interactions with the FDA, omitted adverse regulator feedback, or presented misleading information about regulatory milestones or assessments.
Consumer class action lawsuits targeting foods for alleged false and misleading labeling rose sharply in 2020. Although this trend may appear to threaten the food and beverage industry, courts are applying the “reasonable consumer” standard with a “real world” perspective, dismissing cases despite plaintiffs’ alleged subjective confusion about the labeling at issue because the hypothetical “reasonable consumer” would not have been misled.
Duane Morris, LLP partner discusses the effect of legalizing CBD products on FDA and FTC consumer protection action.
Baker & Hostetler attorneys discuss the DOJ investigation into price-fixing in the chicken industry.
On April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Lamps Plus, Inc., et. al. v. Varela, No 17-988. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the requisite contractual basis to support a finding that the parties agreed to submit a dispute to class arbitration.
Temple Law’s own Professor Pamela Bookman discusses arbitration with respect to international commercial litigation. #Temple10Q
Ruling in a class action brought against Uber Technologies, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that the company’s arbitration clause could not be enforced because it was not “reasonably communicated” to its customers during the online contracting process. The decision is a stark reminder that great attention needs to
Samuel M. Ward and Michael A. Toomey (LAW ’10) discuss the impact of mandatory arbitration in company charters on investors