Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
On appeal from class action settlements involving actions brought by purchasers of pharmaceutical drugs against publishers of drug pricing data, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no apparent reason to allow participation as an appellant by one who is neither a class member nor sought to intervene in the district court and here, the proposed settlement was widely known in the industry, the pharmacy interests are amply represented on appeal and it is hard to see what would be added by further parties; 2) district court's judgment does not operate against non-party pharmacies so as to violate their due process rights or offend FRCP Rule 19 as the district court's management of the case, its insistence on a revised settlement and multiple hearings have given the pharmacy interests a lengthy period to prepare for the rollback; and 3) the district court permissibly found that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided September 3, 2009
For Appellee: Sheila L. Birnbaum, Thomas E. Fox, Mathew J. Matule, Nicholas I. Leitzes and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Thomas M. Sobol, Steve W. Berman, Sean R. Matt, Nicholas Styant-Browne, Barbara A. Mahoney, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kenneth A. Wexler, Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Wexler Wallace LLP, Jeffrey Kodroff, John Macoretta, George E. Barrett, Edmund L. Carey Jr., and Barrett, Johnston & Parsely.