T he First Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed three orders certifying nationwide injunction classes in antitrust cases against American Honda, General Motors Corp., and Ford Motor Company. See In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs alleged that the automobile manufacturers conspired to block lower-priced imports from Canada, and thereby maintained higher prices in the United States. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to represent injunction classes because injunctions are “forwardlooking” and the market condition that led to the alleged price disparity (the exchange rate differential between the U.S. and Canadian dollars) no longer existed. Accordingly, the court found that the alleged threat that might have necessitated an injunction was not “real and immediate.” With regard to the state-law damages claims in the cases, the panel vacated certification and remanded for the lower court to apply a newly-announced standard requiring a more “searching inquiry” for certification under Rule 23. Rather than ruling, as some circuits have, that a rigorous inquiry is always required as to Rule 23 criteria, the court limited its pronouncement to situations where “a Rule 23 requirement relies on a novel or complex theory as to injury.” In such a case, district courts in the First Circuit “must engage in a searching inquiry into the viability of that theory and the existence of the facts necessary for the theory to succeed.”