In Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp., 2012 WL 1109634, __ F3d __ (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit considered the timeliness of a private securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) and upheld a jury verdict for plaintiffs. Defendants argued that plaintiffs had a duty to investigate “suspicious facts” surrounding the investments which triggered the two year statute of limitations and barred the Section 10(b) claims. The Sixth Circuit disagreed. Applying the analysis outlined in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct.784 (2010), the court held that the limitations period to file a Section 10(b) claim begins to run when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered facts establishing a violation, including intent to deceive—not when the plaintiff should have begun to investigate.
Class Actions Blog
Securities class action filed against Groupon
A securities class action lawsuit against Groupon was filed in Illinois on behalf of investors. The complaint, filed April 16, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that Groupon violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements to investors.
The class action is intended to include investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Groupon common stock between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012. The deadline to move the court to be lead plaintiff is June 4, 2012. Read more…
Class action filed against Chase Bank by customers who used convenience checks
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase Bank USA, National Association and Chase Bankcard Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, entitled Gerald Maher v. Chase Bank USA, National Association and Chase Bankcard Services, Inc.. The complaint alleges that Chase sent convenience checks to Chase credit card account holders, but when the convenient checks were used by Chase customers they were allegedly returned, denied processing or dishonored. Read more…
Hartford denies obligation to defend Hulu in class action
Hartford Insurance has asked the California Superior Court to declare that it need not cover Hulu for a class action that claims the streaming website improperly tracks user activity.
Two class actions were filed against Hulu and consolidated, alleging that it “engaged in various ‘tracking exploits,’ which allowed it to track users’ online activity through the use of cookies and other identifiers placed on users’ computers, and that it obtained and misused users’ personal information.” Read more…
De Beers settlement attack rebuffed
Objectors to a huge settlement with De Beers filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the settlement. On April 2, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by members of the indirect purchaser class in the De Beers class action lawsuits. A second petition for certiorari filed by another member of the indirect purchaser class is still under consideration by the Supreme Court.
The denial of this petition means that the previous decision of the “en banc” Third Circhit Court of Appeals denying the class members’ attacks on the settlement will be reinstated.
Payment of claims will likely be delayed until the Supreme Court acts on the second petition for certiorari.
Retailers sued in class actions relating to honey
Four separate class actions have been filed against Target Corporation, Walgreen Co., Aldi, Inc. and Publix Super Markets, Inc., claiming that the retailers falsely and deceptively label their “honey” products. The lawsuits allege that the defendants remove all traces of naturally occurring pollen from their honey products, violating Florida’s “honey standard of identity,” which requires that no pollen be removed “except where unavoidable in the removal of foreign matter,” such as bug parts, wax and debris. The plaintiffs allege that the retailers filter their branded honeys so extensively that all of the pollen is removed unnecessarily. Read more…
