Monday, April 1, 2013

GW Class Action Symposium

For those who were unable to attend the excellent conference on class actions that was held last month at George Washington Law School, video recordings of the panels can now be found on the conference website.

HME

April 1, 2013 in Class Actions, Conferences, Mass Tort Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Comcast v. Behrend

The Supreme Court released its decision in Comcast v. Behrend today.  The Court (with Justice Scalia writing for the majority) overturned the 3rd Circuit and held that the plaintiff does need to introduce evidence in support of its damages model in an antitrust case at the certification stage.  

There is a history of antitrust cases touching on procedural issues having significant impact outside the antitrust field (e.g. AT&T v. Twombly).  This is likely to be another one. 

Some useful links: ScotusblogArgument Recap by Sergio Campos.

ADL

 

March 27, 2013 in Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

US Supreme Court Opinion in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles

In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court unanimously rejected a stipulation by a proposed class representative to limit recovery for the putative class to less than $5 million, in an apparent attempt by plaintiffs to avoid removal to federal court unde the Class Action Fairness Act.  See also SCOTUSblog.

BGS

March 19, 2013 in Class Actions, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

SCOTUS Ruling in Amgen

The Supreme Court just issued its ruling in Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds.  You can find the slip opinion here.

The Court held that a finding of materiality is not necessary at the class certification stage for a Securities Class Action.  Ultimately, of course, plaintiff will have to prove that the representation was material, but the Court said that proof can wait until after class certification.  This holding is consistent with the Court's holding in Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton last year.  In that case, the Court unanimously held that plaintiff need not prove loss causation.  You can find the opinion in that case here.

The Court held in Amgen that since materiality is an issue that is common to the whole class (to think of it in Wal-Mart v. Dukes's language, if plaintiff cannot carry her burden a finding that the representation was not material will decide all the claims "in one stroke"). 

The majority was written by Justice Ginsburg.  Justice Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy dissented and Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.

ADL

 

February 27, 2013 in Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 21, 2013

Kelsey Larson and Carlos Lazatin on Crafting a Defense in Food-Labeling Class Actions

Corporate Counsel has a short piece, Crafting a Defense in Food-Labeling Class Actions, by O'Melveny's Kelsey Larson and Carlos Lazatin.

BGS

January 21, 2013 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, FDA, Food and Drink, Procedure, Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Skadden Analysis of 2013 Potential Developments in Global Litigation

Skadden has issued a useful analysis of upcoming cases to watch and potential developments for 2013 in class actions and product liability.  The analysis includes contributes by Skadden's John Beisner, J. Russell Jackson, and Jessica Miller.

BGS

January 21, 2013 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Preemption, Procedure, Products Liability, Punitive Damages | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 30, 2012

Engle's Progeny

On November 26 the Supreme Court denied cert in RJ Reynold Tobacco Co. v. Clay, an appeal from a Florida state court decision to give the Engle court ruling preclusion effect.

Engle, recall, is the tobacco issue class action certified and upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. Does the denial of cert pave the way for issues class actions to flourish (at least for the moment) or is this just not the right vehicle? 

See Scotusblog for a summary and links.  ADL

November 30, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Procedure, Tobacco | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The New Class Action Landscape

Prof. John C. Coffee and I have posted "The New Class Action Landscape: Trends and Developments in Certification and Related Topics" on SSRN.

This is a memorandum that provides an overview of the trends and highlights in class certification rulings from 2012.  Its going to be another interesting year for class actions at the Supreme Court and we provide a summary and evaluation of the upcoming cases, in addition to highlighting appellate and district court cases of interest.

ADL

November 28, 2012 in Class Actions, Mass Tort Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, October 20, 2012

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 13th Annual Legal Reform Summit

The conference will take place on October 24, 2012 in Washington, D.C., and includes panels on third-party litigation financing and global litigation (including the Chevron Ecuadoran litigation and the adoption of class actions in other countries).

BGS

October 20, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Conferences, Environmental Torts, Foreign, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Class Action Sought For Alleged Victims Tortured by Chicago Police For Confessions

The ABA Journal has more on the case being brought by two legal clinics, including Northwestern's Roderick MacArthur Justice Center.

BGS

October 17, 2012 in Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Class Action Certified in Southern District of California

The PR news wire has more on the case being brought against Wyeth by plaintiffs' firms Beasley Allen, Gregory Holt & Associates, P.A., and Rushall McGeever.

BGS

October 17, 2012 in Class Actions, Pharmaceuticals - Misc. | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 12, 2012

Three Class-Action Cases to be Argued Before SCOTUS

Daniel Fisher at Forbes has an interesting article previewing three class-action cases being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States this fall: Class-Action Lawyers Face Triple Threat At Supreme Court.

BGS

October 12, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Michael Downey on Ethical Issues Related to Incentive Payments for Class Representatives

As part of the ABA Sound Advice series, Michael Downey (Armstrong, Teasdale) addresses ethical issues related to incentive payments for class representatives.

BGS

October 10, 2012 in Class Actions, Ethics, Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 5, 2012

Current Issues in Global Tort Litigation

Those interested in a quick overview of many of the recent issues in global tort litigation might be interested in the following article from the Legal Intelligencer Is Growth of Foreign Class, Mass Actions Changing Products Law?, by Amaris Elliot-Engel (registration required).  I was happy to be quoted in the article along with leading practitioners, but even happier that my current Global Tort Litigation seminar course was mentioned. 

BGS

October 5, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Foreign, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, August 16, 2012

D. Theodore Rave on Governing the Anticommons in Aggregate Litigation

D. Theodore Rave (Furman Fellow, NYU) has posted his article, Governing the Anticommons in Aggregate Litigation, to SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

This article argues that there is an unrecognized “anticommons” problem in aggregate litigation. An anticommons occurs when too many owners’ consent is needed to use a resource at its most efficient scale. When many plaintiffs have similar claims against a common defendant, those claims are often worth more if they can be packaged up and sold to the defendant (i.e., settled) as a single unit — that is, the defendant may be willing to pay a premium for total peace. But because the rights to control those claims are dispersed among the individual plaintiffs, transaction costs and strategic holdouts can make aggregation difficult, particularly in cases where class actions are impractical. Recently the American Law Institute has proposed to modify long-standing legal ethics rules governing non-class aggregate settlements to allow plaintiffs to agree in advance to be bound by a supermajority vote on a group settlement offer. By shifting from individual control over settlement decisions to collective decision making, the ALI proposal may offer a way out of the anticommons and allow the group to capture the peace premium. Critics, however, say that allowing plaintiffs to surrender their autonomy will leave them vulnerable to exploitation by the majority and by their lawyers. Viewed through the lens of the anticommons, these concerns are manageable. Similar anticommons problems arise in many areas of law, ranging from eminent domain to oil and gas to sovereign debt. But instead of slavishly preserving the autonomy of individual rights-holders, these areas of law have developed strategies for aggregating rights when doing so will result in joint gains. Drawing from these other contexts, this article argues that the legitimacy of compelling individuals to participate in a value-generating aggregation depends on the presence of governance procedures capable of protecting the interests of the individuals within the collective and ensuring that the gains from cooperation are fairly allocated. Governance is thus the key to legitimizing attempts to defeat the anticommons in mass litigation through aggregation, whether by regulatory means, such as the class action, or contractual precommitment, as in the ALI proposal.

BGS

August 16, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Ethics, Informal Aggregation, Lawyers, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure, Settlement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, June 25, 2012

Class Actions and the Merits

For those feeling this term lacked excitement because there were not any class action cases, the Supreme Court has recently granted cert on two cases that address the question of class certification and the merits and another case considering the role of class representative.  

The question presented in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend  (No. 11-864) is whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the class is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis? 

The question presented in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds (No. 11-1085) is (1) whether in a misrepresentation case under SEC Rule 10b-5 the district court must require proof of materiality before certifying a class based on the fraud on the market theory and (2) whether in such a case the district court must allow the defendant to present evidence to rebut the applicability of the fraud on the market theory before certifying on that theory. 

Followers of the class action docket will recall that in the banner 2010 term in which the court decided Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Court also held in Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton, 131 S.Ct. 2179 (2011) that plaintiffs in a securities class action need not prove loss causation at class cert.  But hints in the Wal-Mart opinion, particularly Justice Scalia's statement in the majority opinion that Daubert hearings may be appropriate at the class certification stage, indicated that the Halliburton case should not be read broadly.  The grant of certiorari in these two cases indicates that the court will consider whether the plaintiff needs to prove his or her case in tandem with the class certification motion. 

The Court also granted cert on a third class action case, Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk (No. 11-1059), in which it will consider whether a named class representative who was given a Rule 68 offer of judgment before class certification has standing to represent the class that would fully satisfy her individual claim.  In other words, should defendants be allowed to pick off class representatives with offers of settlement?   This case has echoes of Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986) in which the Court upheld a  offer of settlement that gave the civil rights plaintiffs everything they wanted in exchange for a waiver of attorney's fees. 

ADL

 

 

 

June 25, 2012 in Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Collective Action Against Copyright Trolls

Not quite mass torts, but interesting from a complex litigation prespective anyway, so I hope our dear readers will forgive me.

This story concerns the use of the litigation system to intimidate small defendants into settling non-meritorious suits.  One of the areas where this has come up is copyright litigation.  Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn) and Alex Stein (Cardozo) recently wrote an article about this called the Relational Contingency of Rights (available on SSRN, forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review).   The basic observation is an important one: legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can
litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to  force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

It turns out that some able litigants in Israel have taken their ideas and run with them.  Unfortunately, the only link I have describing the litigation is in hebrew (here).   Basically, an individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a  multinational copyright giant, Getty Images. The claim for the Israeli suit, as far as I can tell, sounds in abuse of process.   Is America next?  A defendant class action bringing lawsuit harassment claims? 

ADL

June 19, 2012 in Class Actions, Mass Tort Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 27, 2012

Introducing... Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation

Stanford has an exciting announcement: the creation of the first scholarly law journal devoted to complex litigation!  Stanford law students interested in complex litigation and mass torts will now have the opportunity not only to study under Stanford's Deborah Hensler, but also to edit the Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation.  

Below is a note from the journal's first editors-in-chief, Nick Landsman-Roos and Matt Woleske.

BGS

***

Re: Announcing the Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation! 

Dear Authors: We are proud to announce the founding of the Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation (SJCL). Beginning in the 2012-2013 academic year, SJCL will publish articles and essays that are timely and make a significant, original contribution to the field of complex litigation. We are currently seeking article and essay manuscripts on a range of topics including the rules of civil procedure, aggregate litigation, mass torts, jurisdictional disputes, complex litigation reform, actions by private attorneys general, and transnational litigation. 

We hope you will consider publishing with SJCL for a few reasons: 

    ·         Specialization: SJCL is the first student-edited journal devoted exclusively to topics relating to complex litigation. Publishing with SJCL will ensure your important contribution will be read within the broader field it is engaging. SJCL will serve as a forum for dialogue on complex litigation issues. We also expect that because SJCL is devoted exclusively to complex litigation, it will quickly become a source of guidance for courts and practitioners.   

·         Expedited publishing: Because we are currently accepting submissions for the first volume of SJCL, we will be able to publish many of the submissions we accept in our fall issue. That means you can expect your article with SJCL to be in print faster than almost any other journal. There will be no need to update through a lengthy editing process. 

·         Modified peer review: SJCL will follow a modified peer-review system. Meaning, after a first-level review by SJCL’s editorial staff, any submission that is a candidate for publication will be submitted to at least one scholar in the field of complex litigation or civil procedure who will review the piece. We will take any unanimous decision from our peer reviewers as a binding decision on publication. This will ensure that SJCL is publishing significant contributions to this field.   

·         “Light edit”: Our editorial policy is to afford substantial deference to authors, in both tone and substance. As a result, all articles must be well written, well cited, and completely argued at the time of submissions. SJCL will only edit to ensure readability and Bluebook compliance, which means that the editing process will be faster but also requires that authors vouch for the accuracy of their citations. 

·         Outreach: We are committed to generating interest in the articles published with SJCL. That is why we will actively promote all scholarship we publish at symposia and on the blogosphere. We are also committing to distributing hundreds of copies of our first issue to grow our readership base. 

·         Volume 1: There is something to be said for publishing in the very first volume of a journal. We hope you appreciate this significance and decide to submit your manuscript to SJCL

We review and accept articles year-round on a rolling basis. SJCL strongly prefers electronic submissions through the ExpressO submission system, which can be found online at http://www.law.bepress.com/expresso. You may also e-mail your manuscript to sjcl_submissions@lists.stanford.edu. We do not accept submissions in hard copy. 

SJCL is also seeking faculty with expertise in areas such as civil procedure or complex litigation to serve as reviewers. If you are interested, please contact sjcl_editors@lists.stanford.edu. 

A website with more information is forthcoming. For the time being please refer to our Stanford Law School site: http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/journals/sjcl/. 

Please contact us with any questions. We look forward to working with you. 

Regards, 

Nick Landsman-Roos & Matt Woleske

Editors-in-Chief, Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation

sjcl_editors@lists.stanford.edu 

April 27, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, April 23, 2012

Move Over Amchem - The BP Settlement Class Action Is Here

George Conk has the links to the BP settlement class action.  A quote from the complaint: "The principle was two-fold:  to design claims frameworks that fit a wide array of damage categories, and, within each category, to treat like claims alike, so as to proceed with both fairness and predictability."  

Conk also notes that the settlement offers a "risk transfer premium" for future injuries/losses.   You can find more posts here.

Interesting to think how the court will treat this high profile settlement class action, whether there will be objectors and appeals.

ADL

April 23, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Environmental Torts, Settlement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 20, 2012

McKenzie on the Bankruptcy Model for Mass Torts

Troy McKenzie (NYU) has posted "Toward a Bankruptcy Model for Non-Class Aggregation."  I look forward to reading it.  Here is the abstract:

In recent years, aggregate litigation has moved in the direction of multidistrict litigation followed by mass settlement without certification of a class action — a form commonly referred to as the “quasi-class action.” Driven by increased restrictions on class certification, the rise of the quasi-class action has been controversial. In particular, critics object that it overempowers lawyers and devalues the consent of individual claimants in the name of achieving “closure” in litigation. This Article presents two claims.

First, the debate about the proper scope and form of the quasi-class action too frequently relies on the class action as the touchstone for legitimacy in aggregate litigation. References to the class action, however, are more often misleading than helpful. The basic assumptions behind the class action are different in degree and in kind from the reality of the quasi-class action. Overreliance on the class action as the conceptual framework for aggregation carries the significant risk of unintentionally shackling courts in their attempts to coordinate litigation. The very reason the quasi-class action emerged as a procedural device — the ossification of the class action model of litigation — suggests that courts and commentators should look for another reference model when assessing what is proper or improper in quasi-class actions.

Second, bankruptcy serves as a better model for judging when to use, and how to order, non-class aggregation of mass tort litigation. The entirety of bankruptcy practice need not be imported to realize that bankruptcy may provide a useful lens for viewing aggregation more generally. That lens helps to clarify some of the most troubling concerns about the quasi-class action, such as the proper role of lawyers and the place of claimant consent. Bankruptcy serves as a superior reference model because it starts with an assumption that collective resolution is necessary but tempers the collective with individual and subgroup consent as well as with institutional structures to counterbalance excessive power by lawyers or particular claimants.

ADL

April 20, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Informal Aggregation, Mass Tort Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)