Precedent Setting Decisions
- Home
- Precedent Setting Decisions
Precedent Setting Decisions
Milberg’s tireless litigation efforts, which include victories before the United States Supreme Court, have set groundbreaking legal precedents that strengthened plaintiffs’ rights.
-
See MoreAsher v. Baxter International, Inc.
Asher v. Baxter International, Inc., 377 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2004)In reversing and remanding the District Court’s dismissal, the Seventh Circuit resolved in the plaintiffs’ favor an important issue involving the PSLRA’s “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements. The court held that whether a cautionary statement is meaningful is an issue of fact, which cannot be resolved at the pleading stage. -
See MoreBlackie v. Barrack
Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976)This is the seminal appellate decision on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory of reliance, which allows investors who purchase stock at artificially inflated prices to recover even if they were personally unaware of the false and misleading statements reflected in the stock’s price. In so holding, the court noted that class actions are necessary to protect the rights of defrauded purchasers of securities. -
See MoreComverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation
In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 866 N.Y.S.2d 10 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2008)In this derivative case, plaintiff shareholders sued certain of the company’s officers and directors based on allegations of illegal options backdating. In this significant opinion reversing the lower court’s dismissal, the Appellate Division clarified the standards of demand futility and held that a board of directors loses the protection of the business judgment rule where there is evidence of the directors’ self-dealing and poor judgment. -
See MoreConagra Foods, Inc.
• In re Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 11-05379 (M.D. Cal. 2017)Milberg LLP is co-lead counsel in a class action against ConAgra Foods, Inc., the maker of Wesson Oils, concerning the company’s use of the phrase “100% Natural” to market food products made with crops grown from seeds that have been genetically engineered using sophisticated laboratory techniques. The District Court certified eleven separate statewide classes of Wesson purchasers. ConAgra appealed the class certification order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision in a decision considered extremely favorable to consumer class actions. Conagra petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition. -
See MoreFox v. Reich & Tang, Inc.
Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 692 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1982), aff’d sub nom, Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U.S. 523 (1984)The court held that a Rule 23.1 demand is not required in a shareholder suit brought pursuant to Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. In so holding, the court explained: “Since directors cannot cut off a suit and § 36(b) does not authorize them to institute one, and because shareholder plaintiffs are necessarily challenging fees the directors evaluated and approved, the traditional reason for the demand requirement simply does not apply.”
