US Supreme Court puts an end to untimely piggyback class actions

By Darryl Anderson (US), Dan McClure, Geraldine Young & Lauren Brogdon on June 15, 2018

Companies confronting serial class actions won much needed relief from the US Supreme Court yesterday, in a decision that held that a class action tolls statutes of limitations only for putative class members’ individual claims, and not for later-filed class actions. A second class action must be filed within the limitations period, or it is barred. The opinion in China Agritech v. Resh (“Resh”), written by Justice Ginsburg, is a welcome development for companies that…

Global Workplace Insider

New era of representative evidence? Time will tell

By Barbara D'Aquila & Darryl Anderson (US) on April 5, 2016

On March 22, 2016, in a 6-2 decision, the US Supreme Court greenlighted the use of representative evidence in the federal wage and hour class case of Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146. The Court approved the use of statistical averaging of employee donning and doffing time in connection with Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class certification. The opinion discusses several limiting factors that employers will no doubt argue constrains its applicability, especially…

Health Law Pulse

Third Circuit extends Actavis to non-cash reverse payments

By Darryl Anderson (US), Carol Poindexter (US) & Savannah Wiseman (US) on July 9, 2015

On June 26, the Third Circuit ruled that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements of patent infringement litigation between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies can face antitrust scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, even when the “payment” at issue is an agreement by the branded company not to market an authorized generic product for a period of time. King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., __ F.3d __, 2015…

The Brand Protection Blog

US Supreme Court holds pay-for-delay subject to antitrust scrutiny but not presumptively unlawful

By Darryl Anderson (US), Layne Kruse (US) & John Byron (US) on June 26, 2013

The fight to curtail “pay-for-delay” or “reverse payment” settlements between pharmaceutical patent holders and generic drug makers received a shot in the arm on Monday, as the Supreme Court held this week that these agreements are not immune from antitrust scrutiny.[1] The decision, however, was not a complete victory for either regulators or private plaintiffs. The Court refused to find pay-for-delay agreements presumptively unlawful. Instead, they are subject to a “rule of reason” analysis. Background:…

Darryl Anderson (US)

US Supreme Court puts an end to untimely piggyback class actions

New era of representative evidence? Time will tell

Third Circuit extends Actavis to non-cash reverse payments

US Supreme Court holds pay-for-delay subject to antitrust scrutiny but not presumptively unlawful

Company

Support

New to the Network