In price-fixing action against key players in the hydrogen peroxide industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified three elements of the class certification procedure: First, the plaintiff must make not merely a “threshold showing” but rather an actual showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Second, the court must resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits, and including disputes which touch on the elements of the cause of action. (The determination as to a Rule 23 requirement, the Court explained, is made only for purposes of class certification, and is not binding on the trier of facts, even if that trier is the class certification judge.) Third, the court’s obligation to consider all relevant evidence and arguments extends to expert testimony, whether offered by a party seeking class certification or by a party opposing it. See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3rd Cir. 2009).