If one message leaps out from this past term, it is that the U.S. Supreme Court’s five justice majority greatly dislikes class and aggregate litigation. This message came through loud and clear both in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes,1 in which the Court made class certification virtually impossible in any Title VII class action for money damages and in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,2 in which the Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California’s attempt to mandate class-wide arbitration in standard form retail contracts.
But nowhere is it clearer than in Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders,3 in which the same five justice majority selectively combs dictionaries to give the narrowest possible construction to the term “maker” for purposes of Rule 10b-5. The net result was that an investment adviser who controlled a mutual fund and drafted its public statements could not be held liable for knowing misrepresentations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
