The February 13, 2009, edition of Drug Week reported on Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney's recent win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As reported in the article, for the second time in under a month, attorneys from Buchanan won the reversal of a class certification decision in an antitrust action.

On January 27, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court opinion that had certified six classes consisting of direct purchasers of organotin heat stabilizers, mixed metal heat stabilizers, epoxidized soybean oil, acrylic impact modifiers, methacrylate butadiene styrene impact modifiers, and acrylic processing aids, respectively, between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2003. In a one-page order in In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for further consideration in light of that court's December 30, 2008, decision in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation.

Taken together, the Third Circuit's decisions in Hydrogen Peroxide and Plastics Additives significantly clarify what district courts must do when conducting the "rigorous analysis" required to resolve contested class certification motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Steven E. Bizar, Howard D. Scher, Thomas P. Manning, Francis X. Taney, Jr., Landon Y. Jones and Jill Spiker of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC in Philadelphia represented defendant Arkema Inc. in both the district court and the court of appeals.