Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that California law allows “for comparative equitable indemnification among joint intentional tortfeasors” (citing Baird, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 238)
• noting that 15 “[j]oint tortfeasors may act in concert or independently of one another,” and the focus of 16 the inquiry is on “the interrelated nature of the harm done.”
• explaining that a bank can aid and abet a tort through performing routine functions, but the bank must have actual knowledge that it was assisting a customer in committing a tort
• discussing class certification in cases with standardized sales pitches or a common course of conduct
• “[A]iding and abetting 12 liability under California law, as applied by the California state courts, requires a 13 finding of actual knowledge, not specific intent.”
• “The required degree of uniformity among misrepresentations in a class action for fraud is a question of law . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).