CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation

This memorandum addresses two motions for class certification in a pharmaceutical antitrust case concerning the muscle relaxant Skelaxin. Plaintiffs, comprised of Indirect Purchasers and End Payors, alleged that defendants King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. colluded to delay the entry of a generic drug. The Court denied both class certification motions, finding the End Payors' proposed class not ascertainable due to the need for individualized contractual inquiries. For Indirect Purchasers, certification was denied primarily for failure to establish a proper choice-of-law for a nationwide class and inadequate support for state-specific subclasses. Additionally, End Payors' related motions for partial summary judgment and to strike expert testimony were denied without prejudice.

AntitrustClass ActionPharmaceuticalsSkelaxinMetaxaloneGeneric DrugClass CertificationIndirect PurchasersEnd PayorsChoice of Law
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. 06-md-1775
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2013

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses objections to a Magistrate Judge's directive for partial disclosure of grand jury testimony from John Doe and James Doe, given in a federal investigation into price-fixing in the air cargo industry. District Judge John Gleeson sustained the objections filed by John Doe, James Doe, Airline 1, and Airline 2. The court determined that the Magistrate Judge erred by not adequately balancing the plaintiffs' particularized need for the testimony against the strong policy interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. Despite the plaintiffs' need for impeachment or recollection refreshing, the court found this did not outweigh concerns about potential retaliation, social stigma, and the protection of witness reputations within the industry. Consequently, the grand jury testimony was ordered not to be disclosed.

Grand Jury SecrecyAntitrust LitigationPrice-fixing ConspiracyWitness Testimony DisclosureFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(e)Douglas Oil StandardParticularized NeedEastern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureMagistrate Judge Order
References
21
Case No. No. 92 Civ. 5130; No. 94 Civ. 3809; No. 92 CV-511
Regular Panel Decision

In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation

This consolidated multidistrict litigation addresses antitrust claims brought by purchasers of industrial diamond products. Plaintiffs allege that General Electric Co. and De Beers entities conspired to fix and stabilize prices in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). A class was certified for direct purchasers of list-price products, with the court determining that common questions of conspiracy and impact predominated for this group. The decision outlines a bifurcated trial approach to manage liability and damages, reserving the option to decertify or create subclasses for damages if necessary.

AntitrustClass ActionPrice FixingSherman ActClayton ActMultidistrict LitigationClass CertificationFraudulent ConcealmentIndustrial Diamond ProductsIndirect Purchasers
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. Docket No. 74
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiff Electronic Trading Group L.L.C. (ETG) filed a class action alleging that various financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, engaged in an antitrust conspiracy related to short sale transactions by fixing borrowing fees and not enforcing delivery of shorted securities. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that federal securities laws implicitly precluded antitrust claims. The Court, applying the Credit Suisse Secs. (USA) LLC v. Billing framework, found that the short sale market is an area squarely within securities regulation with active SEC oversight. It concluded there was a serious conflict between applying antitrust and securities laws, as it could deter lawful conduct and interfere with SEC policy regarding failure-to-deliver. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the antitrust claim with prejudice and dismissed the related state law claims without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSecurities RegulationShort SalesClass ActionMotion to DismissImplicit PreclusionSherman ActRegulation SHOFiduciary DutyUnjust Enrichment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged actions to improperly delay the market entry of generic competitors to its dry-eye medication Restasis®. End-Payor Plaintiffs (EPPs), representing health and welfare funds, assert they overpaid due to Allergan's monopolistic conduct, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO, and using tribal sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss various state antitrust and consumer protection claims. The court, presided over by Judge Nina Gershon, granted in part and denied in part Allergan's motion, dismissing some claims (e.g., Missouri, Pennsylvania, Vermont due to standing or reliance requirements, and portions of Arkansas claims post-August 1, 2017) while allowing others to proceed (e.g., Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California, Colorado).

Antitrust LawConsumer ProtectionMonopolizationGeneric DrugsPatent InfringementSham LitigationRule 12(b)(6) MotionIndirect PurchasersState Law ClaimsMulti-District Litigation
References
60
Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

This opinion addresses a motion for class certification in consolidated actions alleging securities and common law fraud. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class against various defendants, including Bear Stearns & Co. and Baird Patrick & Co., for a scheme to manipulate the prices of 'Blech Securities' between October 1991 and September 1994. The court reviewed the class action requirements under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finding that these requirements were satisfied, the court granted the motion for class certification, with the creation of three subclasses to manage the litigation efficiently.

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 1,210 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational