Search results
3 results
Sort by:
November 1, 2017Roger B. Greenberg, Zach Wolfe
Does Halliburton II Allow Defendants to Prove a Lack of “Correctiveness” to Defeat Class Certification?
In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (“Halliburton II”), the U.S. Supreme Court held that defendants in federal securities fraud cases may defeat class certification by proving a lack of “price impact” at the class certification stage. This holding gave defendants in such cases a significant new opportunity to defeat class certification. But lower courts so far have not given Halliburton II the robust application that Halliburton and other corporate defendants may have hoped for.
November 1, 2012Texas Journal of Business Law
Volume 45, Issue 1 of the Texas Journal of Business Law
The entire issue, all in a single file.
October 23, 2009John M. Farrell, Dean J. Schaner
2009: A Layoff Odyssey Layoffs and Reductions in Force
The current economic climate has forced many employers to take a hard look at their workforce. Does every job classification contribute value? Can separate positions be combined into one? Are there underperforming employees? Are there areas where reducing force will lead to real cost savings? The answers to these questions often point to a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) which, if implemented, has the potential to save an employer significant labor costs or sink the employer in a mountain of legal fees and liability. Savvy employers will engage experienced labor and employment counsel to examine and analyze the host of legal issues that accompany RIFs, and carefully plan the RIF to avoid claims arising from the various federal and state laws whose acronyms an employer would prefer to see in a bowl of alphabet soup and not in a lawsuit filed against the company.