Khunt v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the failure to correct clerical errors does not “strike at the heart of Rule 23’s adequacy requirement”
• rejecting a group whose members were introduced to each other through counsel and whose only involvement was “a single conference call”
• weighing fact that “plaintiffs do appear to be quite sophisticated,” although ultimately not approving group
• rejecting lead-plaintiff group, despite sophistication, because group appeared to be “cobbled together” by lawyers and likely to create “case control problems and rival disagreements, resulting in delay and increased expense”
• \If a loss is not Dura eligible then it is not redressable through the putative class action[.]\
• “The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select lead counsel, subject to approval by the Court.” (citing 15 U.S.C.A. § 78u-4(a)(3))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Balestra v. ATBCOIN LLC
  S.D. Illinois· 2019-03-31· cited 25×
• In re Sequans Commc'ns S.A. Sec. Litig.
  E.D. New York· 2018-02-06· cited 18×
• Brady v. Top Ships Inc.
  E.D. New York· 2018-07-20· cited 17×
• Galmi v. Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd.
  D. Connecticut· 2017-07-11· cited 15×
• Kux-Kardos v. VimpelCom, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 2016-04-27· cited 11×
• City of Warren Police v. Foot Locker, Inc.
  E.D. New York· 2018-06-25· cited 10×
• Kniffin v. Micron Tech., Inc.
  S.D. Illinois· 2019-04-30· cited 9×
• Cullinan v. Cemtrex, Inc.
  E.D. New York· 2018-03-09· cited 2×

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2014-03-25· cited 2,704×
• Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
  Supreme Court· 2005-04-19· cited 2,236×
• In Re: Cendant Corporation Litigation
  Third Circuit· 1992-02-11· cited 465×
• CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2011-03-18· cited 175×
• In Re Olsten Corp. Securities Litig.
  E.D. New York· 1998-05-04· cited 132×
• In re Oxford Health Plans Inc., Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1998-07-15· cited 119×
• Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2008-12-10· cited 102×
• In re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2005-07-13· cited 93×
• Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. LaBranche & Co.
  S.D. New York· 2004-05-27· cited 89×
• In re Donnkenny Inc. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1997-04-02· cited 79×
• In re Cendant Corp. Litigation
  D. New Jersey· 1998-09-08· cited 76×
• Chill v. Green Tree Financial Corp.
  D. Minnesota· 1998-06-29· cited 66×
• Sallustro v. CannaVest Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2015-03-19· cited 65×
• Newby v. Enron Corp.
  S.D. Texas· 2002-02-15· cited 55×
• In Re Razorfish, Inc. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2001-05-04· cited 51×
• Sumitomo Copper Litigation v. Credit Lyonnais Rouse, Ltd.
  Second Circuit· 2001-08-15· cited 46×
• Reitan v. China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 2014-11-20· cited 45×
• In re Party City Securities Litigation
  D. New Jersey· 1999-08-06· cited 43×
• In re Baan Co. Securities Litigation
  District of Columbia· 1999-04-12· cited 42×
• Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2003-05-19· cited 41×