Case Citator › In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
471 F.3d 24
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
77 of 77
Citing cases (total)
575
Treatment dates
2007
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 77 flagged citations for In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation have been checked: 76 were read, and the one confirmed treatment is listed below. In re Live Concert Antitrust Litigation found In re IPO persuasive but declined to follow its competing-evidence rule because the court was bound by contrary Ninth Circuit precedent.
More on how this was screened

The other citing opinions read applied In re IPO, rejected an adverse argument about it, or merely reported In re IPO's treatment of earlier class-certification authorities. The retrieved text of the remaining citing opinion did not contain the citation; it is noted below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

575 later cases cite In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation; 77 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • Applying binding Ninth Circuit law, the court declined to follow In re IPO's requirement that district courts weigh conflicting evidence at class certification.

    In re Live Concert Antitrust Litigation · C.D. Cal. · filed

    If this Court were free to craft its own standard, it would follow the standard established by In re IPO Sec. Litig. The Court finds the reasoning of IPO persuasive and consistent with the views of nearly every other Circuit. However, as discussed in Part IV, for purposes of the MDL this Court is only bound by Ninth Circuit precedent. A plain reading of Dukes, coupled with Dukes’ reliance on standards articulated by the overruled Caridad and In re Visa Check/Master-Money Antitrust Litig. decisions rather than In re IPO Sec. Litig. (or a decision from any other Circuit), clearly demonstrates that the Ninth Circuit intended to prohibit district courts from weighing conflicting evidence when determining whether the Rule 23 requirements are satisfied.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace