Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘CLE Programs’ Category

I will be presenting on one of my favorite topics, developments in international class action litigation, at an upcoming webinar co-sponsored by The Knowledge Congress, BakerHostetler, and KCC.  Breaking Down Global Class Action Cases will be broadcast live on Thursday, August 22, 2013 from noon to 2:00 p.m. EDT.  We’ll be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Kiobel and Morrison as well as trends in the development of class action law outside the U.S.  See below for more information. 

To sign up for free, courtesy of BakerHostetler, click this link.

Event Summary

Remaining up-to-date with the issues revolving around class actions and knowing the best practices is key to effectively defending clients and raising the bar.  Join us in this two-hour, live webcast as our panel of key thought leaders and practitioners discuss significant developments in global class action litigation with key updates on class action law.

Included in their discussions are the following:
•Overview of the Recent Global Class Action Cases
•Class Action Settlement Principles
•Impact of Class Action Law to Other Laws, such as: Privacy, Employment and Labor, Financial Services
•Best Practices and Latest Trends in Defending Class Action Litigation
•Up-to-the-minute Regulatory Update

Read Full Post »

I’m very excited to be speaking at a Strafford Publications CLE webinar tomorrow entitled: Statistics in Class Action Litigation: Admissibility, Expert Witnesses and Impact of Comcast v. Behrend.   The program is scheduled for June 18, 2013 at  1:00pm-2:30pm EDT.  This is the third iteration of this presentation, which has been updated to offer insights in light of the Supreme Court’s Comcast decision earlier this term.  Brian Troyer of Thompson Hine in Cleveland and Justin Hopson and Rick Preston from Hitachi Consulting in Denver will be co-presenting.  Below is a synopsis of the program.  Click here for more information and to register:

Class certification standards have become more rigorous, and the skillful use of statistical evidence is an important part of class actions. Effectively employing or challenging statistics can make a difference in winning or losing a class certification motion.

Statistical evidence is introduced through expert witness testimony, and Daubert challenges may be an effective strategy. This raises the issue of the scope of the court’s inquiry into the merits at the class certification stage.

The 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukes Supreme Court ruling underscored the prominent role of statistical evidence in assessing the merits at the certification stage. The Court’s recent Comcast v. Behrend ruling reinforces Dukes regarding merits assessments at class certification, thus impacting the continued role of statistical evidence.

Listen as our experienced panel examines statistical evidence in certification proceedings, the impact of Comcast v. Behrend and related case law, and best practices for using statistics and cross-examining witnesses.

Outline

  1. Role of statistical evidence in support of class certification
  2. Expert testimony and Daubert analysis at class certification stage
  3. Impact of Comcast v. Berhrend and Wal-Mart v. Dukes
  4. Science of statistics and cross-examining the statistics witness

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • What is the impact of Comcast and Dukes upon the use of statistical analysis at class certification?
  • What strategies can counsel use to effectively cross-examine statistics witnesses?
  • What types of statistics can be introduced and what are the proper ways to utilize statistics?

Following the speaker presentations, you’ll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.

Read Full Post »

I’ll be presenting at a Webcast on trends in social media and the law next Friday, June 6, along with Michele L. Gibbons of Jones Day.  See below for a program summary.  You can register by clicking this link:

Social Media Crash and Burn:
Cleaning up the Mess and Rebuilding
LIVE Webcast

In today’s digital age, corporations spend more on online advertising than in print to the tune of billions. However, as the corporate world utilizes social media, they should also be ready and responsive when the inevitable crash and burn occurs. Poorly executed social media campaigns have cost companies and individuals, big time.

Getting ahead of the game is always a good technique to help mitigate the risk and minimize the damages. Once a campaign is out in the wild, there’s no stopping it. You need to think ahead. Join this LIVE Webcast as some of the industry’s great minds share their opinions on best practices for using social media effectively and safely. They will also provide an in-depth look at its features and practical uses. The discussion will also include the following:

Thursday, June 6, 2013
12:00 pm – 2:00 pm (ET)

Credit Info:
Course Level: Intermediate
Prerequisite: None
Method of Presentation:
Group-Based-Internet
Recommended CLE/CPE Hours:
1.75 – 2.0
Advance Preparation:
Print and review course materials
Course Code: 134422 

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Media as a Marketing Tool
• Things to Consider in Generating and Implementing Social Media Policies
• Securing Data: Understanding CDA’s Safe Harbor and Privacy law
• Effective Ways of Mitigating and Managing Risks That May Exist
• Significant Legal Issues Related to Social Media Usage
• Damage Control
• Up-to-the minute Regulatory Updates
Social Media Crash and Burn: Cleaning up the Mess and Rebuilding — LIVE Webcast is a must-attend event for In-House Counsel, Risk Officers and Administrators, Data Security Professionals and other related professionals.

Speakers:
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Partner, BakerHostetler
Michele L. Gibbons, Of Counsel, Jones Day
(Note: if CLE or CPE is needed, a minimal/partial processing fee is $49 for the registrant. Otherwise, it’s 100 percent free to participate in the webcast.)
Register for this event
Email: info@knowledgecongress.org with any questions.
(Please note, complimentary passes are available for the first 30 registrants. Once all of the passes are used, attendees can register for the deeply discounted rate of $25 each, courtesy of BakerHostetler.)

Read Full Post »

The Class Actions, Mass Torts and Derivative Suits Subcommittee of the Colorado Bar Association, now ably chaired by my BakerHostetler partner, Casie Collignon, held its first CLE luncheon of the year this past Friday.  The program, United States Supreme Court vs. Class Actions in 2013, featured excellent commentary about the Supreme Court’s 2013 class action decisions by The Honorable Marcia Krieger, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Seth Katz of Burg Simpson, and John Fitzpatrick of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell.  Here are just a few of the many insightful observations made by each of the speakers:

Judge Krieger opened by observing that none of the cases this term have been a surprise from the standpoint of what a trial court judge would have expected given existing law.  Amgen was predictable because the question of materiality in a securities fraud case is unquestionably a common issue, so it is not surprising that it is a question for trial, not a prerequisite for class certification.  Standard Fire can be viewed as a straightforward application of agency law: a plaintiff cannot bind a class of people that he or she doesn’t yet represent.  Comcast exemplifies the importance of examining the plaintiffs’ theory of liability and the relationship to the theory of loss.  Damages are not the same as loss.  The theory by which the plaintiff establishes loss determines the measure of damages.

When asked to identify any trends that she has been seeing in class actions recently, Judge Krieger identified issue certification as a key trend.  She has been seeing more situations where the factual issues may be individualized but there are common legal issues that can be resolved classwide.  She noted that she has been inclined to grant partial certification limited to the common legal issue(s) in that situation.

From the plaintiffs’ perspective, Katz agreed that the outcome of Standard Fire was not surprising, and he went as far as to say that the outcome was correct, noting that plaintiffs’ attorneys shouldn’t be afraid of the federal courts.  Although the holding of Amgen was favorable to plaintiffs, Katz noted an issue that should be of great concern to plaintiffs, and that is the commentary from the conservative wing of the court suggesting that they might be willing to revisit the fraud-on-the-market presumption adopted in Basic Inc. v. Levinson.  Katz sees the potential of a 4-4 split on that issue, with Chief Justice Roberts being the deciding vote.  He predicts market studies being commissioned by both sides over the coming years to demonstrate or disprove the continued efficiency of the markets.

Comcast, Katz noted, caused a collective sigh of relief in the plaintiffs’ bar because it does not go as far as many would have feared by requiring Daubert hearings at the class certification phase.  He noted that one positive impact for plaintiffs arising from the “death of Eisen” (the rejection in decisions like Wal-Mart and Comcast of the idea that merits questions were off-limits at the class certification phase) is that it gives plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to obtain merits discovery much earlier in a case than was allowed previously.  On the other hand, Katz expressed fear about the possibility that the Court is trying to raise the bar for plaintiffs with a subtle change in the language about what common proof is necessary on the issue of damages.  Where earlier decisions required that damages be “susceptible to classwide proof,” the Comcast majority phrased the standard as requiring the plaintiff to “prove classwide damages.”  Katz predicts that defendants will argue that this means damages must be uniform, as opposed to simply being susceptible to formulaic calculation.  He noted, however, that the few lower courts that have interpreted Comcast so far have rejected a broad application of the decision.

Fitzpatrick combined philosophical commentary about the evolution of class actions with some practical tips for defense lawyers.  Standard Fire, he argued, is proof that judicial hellholes still exist.  He pointed to Amgen as an example of the dangers of accepting conventional wisdom, pointing out that the outcome in that case might well have been different if the defendants had stipulated to the existence of an efficient market.

Comcast, Fitzpatrick said, provides an opportunity for defendants to prevail at the class certification stage by discrediting a plaintiffs’ expert.  Focus not just on the opinions themselves, he suggested, but also on 1) the existence of bias; 2) the expert’s credentials, and 3) flaws in the methodology.  Scour the country for transcripts about the plaintiffs’ experts.  Look at misstatements and exaggerations in the expert’s CV.  Make sure you find and read all of their prior statements in books, media, and transcripts.  Just as important, Fitzpatrick reminded defense practitioners, is the make sure to prepare your own experts for class certification.

Read Full Post »

Don’t miss the upcoming Strafford webinar on recent developments in TCPA class actions, scheduled for March 20.  My colleague Justin Winquist and I will provide commentary from the defense perspective, while Keith J. Keogh and John G. Watts will offer the plaintiffs’ viewpoint.  For more information about the program and to register, click this link.  Here’s a brief synopsis of the program:

TCPA consumer and privacy class action litigation remains steady following the 2012 milestone U.S. Supreme Court case Mims v. Arrow Financial Services.

The Mims case opened the door for plaintiffs’ attorneys to file TCPA class actions in state or federal court, even where diversity jurisdiction does not exist. Since Mims, defendants have tested state law limitations on federal claims and whether state or federal statutes of limitations defenses apply.

TCPA claims challenging text messages to cellphones are also on the rise, forcing courts to consider how to interpret the Act in light of new technology.

Listen as our authoritative panel of class action attorneys explains the latest trends in telephone and fax advertising under the TCPA, highlighting key issues of federal jurisdiction, state law limitations, and how courts are adapting their decisions to new technology. The panel will provide plaintiff and defense counsel with best practices for litigating in this rapidly-changing area of law.

Read Full Post »

Strafford Publications is sponsoring a webinar on class action settlement objectors next Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 1:00 EST. This is a reprise of a webinar that I did with New Jersey Appellate Law blogger Bruce Greenberg a year or so ago.  Due to a scheduling conflict, I won’t be able to participate this time, but my partner Casie Collignon will share her valuable insights instead.  For more information and to register, click the title of the program below:

Class Action Settlement Objectors

Minimizing and Defending Against Challenges by Professional Objectors, Government Officials and Public Interest Groups

A live 90-minute CLE webinar/teleconference with interactive Q&A


Thursday, January 10, 2013 (5 days) 1:00pm-2:30pm EST, 10:00am-11:30am PST

Description

Objections by outside attorneys, government officials and public interest groups can jeopardize or delay class action settlements. Both sides can face problematic objections from “professional objectors” who may appear to be motivated solely to extract part of the fee or take over as class counsel.

Government official objections are usually aimed at coupon settlements and settlement release language intended to bind state officials. Public interest groups that file objections have varied purposes and political agendas. Coupon settlements and cy pres provisions are natural targets.

Both plaintiff and defense counsel may take advantage of several key preventative measures and tactics to ward off and protect proposed settlements from non-class counsel objectors as well as government and public interest objections.

Listen as our panel of experienced class action attorneys provides a review of trends and case law developments in settlement objections from non-class attorney objectors and government or private interest objectors. The panel will discuss best practices for plaintiff and defense counsel to minimize and overcome challenges from objectors.

Read Full Post »

This is the last of six posts summarizing my notes of the six presentations at the ABA’s 16th Annual Class Actions Institute held in October in Chicago.  For more on this excellent conference, see my October 31, November 5, November 6November 18, and December 3 CAB posts.

This year’s Institute was capped off by a presentation and demonstration entitled: “Preparing Early and Often,” State-of-the-Art Strategies for Managing Class Action Experts.  Andrew J. McGuiness moderated the panel, which consisted of expert economists Dr. Janet S. Netz and Dr. James Langenfeld, attorneys Mary Jane Fait and Laurie A. Novion, and U.S. District Court Judge Gerald E. Rosen.  The panel’s insightful tips were highlighted by vignettes in the form of mock examinations of the two experts. 

Daubert analysis of proposed expert testimony is required at the class certification, a question on which the Supreme Court may shed some light when it rules on Comcast v. Behrend later this term.  At the moment, circuits that require a Daubert analysis include the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.  The Sixth and Eighth Circuits have both adopted a Daubert-lite standard, while the Fifth Circuit has taken a “Daubert Maybe ” or “Daubert I don’t know” approach to the question.

The vignettes illustrated some of the key potential lines of attack on a plaintiff’s or a defendant’s expert’s opinions presented in support of or in opposition to class certification.  They include (but are not limited to): 1) whether the expert relied on a reliable dataset; 2) whether there is a formulaic basis for calculating damages; 3) whether there are any inconsistencies between the defendant’s own transactional data and outside data, such as market research data; 4) whether any individual variation in the data can be explained in a systemic way; and 5) whether a regression analysis or other analytical model is a valid way of evaluating the data or its causal connection to the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Both the vignettes and the panelists’ observations served to reinforce how important it is for the lawyer to present an expert’s testimony in a way so that the judge understands the evidence.

One key practice tip offered by the panel was to consider using a consulting expert before turning to a testifying expert.  This way, different models or modes of analysis can be tested without fear of tainting the conclusions of the testifying expert or unnecessarily exposing the testifying expert to impeachment or cross-examination. 

However, that does not mean that it is not necessary to make full disclosure to the testifying expert about the material facts and legal issues in the case.  A common frustration that experts have with lawyers is they oftentimes fail to provide a fair and clear picture of the facts or applicable law, leading the expert to an opinion that is at odds with the facts or irrelevant to the issues in the case.  At minimum, this can put the expert in an awkward position and undermine the attorney’s client’s chances for success.  At worst, it can both lead to an adverse decision and cause undeserved and lasting damage to the expert’s professional reputation.

Read Full Post »

Those of you who have been following my summaries of the 16th Annual Class Action Institute will be pleased to know that the paper of the past year’s class action developments prepared for the conference by Professors Alexandra D. Lahav and John C. Coffee, Jr. is available for free download at SSRN.  Click here for a link to the paper, entitled The New Class Action Landscape: Trends and Developments in Class Certification and Related Topics.  I highly recommend the paper for anyone who is looking for a comprehensive summary of all of the past year’s class action developments.  

For a summary of Professor Coffee’s and Professor Lahav’s oral presentations at the conference, see this October 31 CAB post.  Stay tuned for my summaries of the final two sessions at the conference…

Read Full Post »

This is the first in what will be six posts summarizing my notes of the six presentations at the ABA’s 16th Annual Class Actions Institute held last Thursday in Chicago.  The National Institute sets the gold standard for class action conferences, and this year was no exception.  Program Chair Daniel Karon and the rest of the organizing committee did an excellent job selecting six of the most timely and relevant topics facing class action practitioners today.  As always, the list of panelists was a veritable who’s who in the class action field.  If you ever have the opportunity to attend this annual conference, I highly recommend it.

As has become the custom at the National Institute, Columbia Law Professor John C. Coffee, Jr. kicked off this year’s program with a comprehensive and insightful summary of the year’s key developments in class action law.  This year’s presentation saw what has been a hit solo act turn into an even better duet, as Professor Coffee shared the stage with Connecticut Law Professor Alexandra Lahav.  The session was titled “Holy Cow!  This Year the Courts Said What?!” A Brief History of this Year’s Developments in Class Action Jurisprudence.  Attendees were also treated to a comprehensive, 179-page summary of the year in class actions by Professors Coffee and Lahav entitled The New Class Action Landscape: Trends and Developments in Class Certification and Related Topics.

The first part of Professor Coffee’s presentation covered each of the class action-related cases on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket this term.  Here is a list of those cases with some of Professor Coffee’s insights:

  • Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen, Inc., 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011) - Amgen raises the question whether the plaintiff must establish the materiality of an alleged false statement at the class certification stage of a securities fraud class action.  Professor Coffee believes that this case is a close call, but whichever way it comes out, it does not threaten to end securities class action litigation as we know it.
  • Behrend v. Comcast Corporation, 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011) – In Behrend, the Court could decide whether a trial court must perform a full Daubert analysis of expert testimony offered in support of or in opposition to class certification.  The case raises the question, at least in the antitrust context, whether the plaintiff must present a  formal damages model or whether the mere possibility of common proof is enough.
  • Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 656 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2011) – This is a wage and hour case under the FLSA, which has a different procedure than Rule 23.  FLSA claims are more accurately characterized as collective actions, rather than class action.  The issue is whether a settlement offer for the full amount of the named plaintiff’s FLSA claim can moot the claim and prevent the case from proceeding on a collective basis, a concept also known as “picking off.”   One of the arguments that has been raised is that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvident granted, so it is unclear whether the Court will actually enter a substantive ruling.
  • Knowles v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130077 (W.D. Ark. December 2, 2011) – This case raises the question whether a plaintiff can plead around CAFA removal jurisdiction by stipulating to less than $5 million in damages on behalf of the putative class.  Professor Coffee felt confident in making the prediction that the defendant will win.  He points to dicta in the Court’s recent decision in Smith v. Bayer Corporation calling into question whether a plaintiff can do anything to bind the members of a putative class before it is certified.

Professor Coffee then went on to highlight some of the big developments in the lower courts from over the past year, which include:

The proper burden of proof to be applied at class certification.  The circuits are split on this issue, with some applying a preponderance of the evidence standard and others simply requiring a rigorous analysis with no particular evidentiary standard.

Treatment of expert testimony.  The federal district courts continue to resist resolving a battle of the experts at the class certification stage, but dicta from the Supreme Court in Dukes, as well as holdings by several of the circuits, are putting increasing pressure on the federal courts to perform a Daubert analysis (and the Court could resolve this issue for good in Behrend).

Class Arbitration Waivers.  Some lower courts, especially the Second Circuit, continue to carve out exceptions to the Supreme Court’s ruling favoring arbitration agreements in Concepcion.   One key issue is whether a class arbitration waiver may still be held unconscionable as a matter of federal law.  Professor Coffee quipped that the Second Circuit will only change if the Supreme Court “stuffs it down their throat.”  While unconscionability under state law is no longer a viable argument against enforcing an arbitration clause, clauses with fee-shifting provisions continue to be susceptible to attack.

Settlement Only and Limited Fund Classes.  There is a lower court trend in permitting certification in settlement classes in cases that could not be certified as class actions in contested cases, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s opinion in Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997).  The primary justification tends to be that any individualized issues of fact in the case went to manageability, which is no longer an issue in the settlement context.   In cases where courts have found that individualized issues impact both predominance and manageability, settlement classes have continued to be rejected.

Partial Certification.   The question of issue certification has been one of the hottest trends in the federal courts in the wake of Dukes.  Professor Coffee pointed out that the resolution of whether courts allow partial certification tends to be determined whether the fact of certification creates an extortionate threat to settle the case.

Class Action Settlements.  If you read just one class certification decision this year, Professor Coffee recommends Judge Rosenthal’s memorandum opinion in In re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 09-2046 (S.D. Tex. March 20, 2012), which has a well-organized, step-by-step analysis of the approval of a class action settlement.

Professor Lahav focused her remarks on what has been happening in the lower courts in response to the three key aspects of the Court’s decision in Dukes: 1) the “new commonality” requirement; 2) the rejection of the use of Rule 23(b)(2) to recover individualized money damages; and 3) the rejection of “trial by formula,” of the use of statistical sampling to solve individualized damages problems.

The “new commonality”.  Among Professor Lahav’s key observations was that in the Title VII context, there must be a policy, but if there is an identifiable policy, the courts will allow discretionary elements of that policy to be attacked.  This trend is best exemplified by Judge Posner’s decision in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.  As many commentators predicted, Plaintiffs have had better success after Dukes by narrowing the geographic scope of discrimination claims.  This has also been true in the consumer context.  In the civil rights context, allegations of systemic constitutional violations have had success when the courts have focused on the systemic nature of the practice, but not when courts have focused on the effects of a systemic practice on the prospective class members.  In general, there has been an increasing reliance on issues classes to overcome individualized issues that might destroy commonality or predominance.

Rule 23(b)(2) and monetary damages.  The majority opinion in Dukes raised the question whether there can ever be a class with monetary damages.  None of the circuit courts have provided further guidance on when damages might be sufficiently “incidental” to still allow relief.  One area that has seen mixed results since Dukes is the area of medical monitoring class actions, where the remedy sought is medical monitoring of the possible health effects of a toxic exposure but the cost of monitoring can vary from person to person.  Professor Lahav pointed to the Third Circuit’s decision in Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 10-2108 (3d Cir., Aug. 25, 2011), as potentially supporting arguments on both sides.  Hybrid class actions, where classes are certified based on both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), are becoming increasingly common, especially in the Title VII context.  One unanswered question is whether damages claims are precluded if a Rule 23(b)(2) class is certified but not successful.

Statistical evidence and “trial by formula.”   Statistical evidence is still accepted in contexts where it has been accepted traditionally, e.g. civil rights, disparate impact, and antitrust cases.  It is not allowed in cases where the defendant can raise individualized defenses.  One proposed solution is, again, issues classes, but this creates a class action funding problem – How do lawyers get paid?

Professor Lahav also revisited statistical trends in class actions, focusing primarily on data compiled by the Federal Judicial Center in 2008 which analyzed the impact of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).  She made the key point that statistical data on class action trends has been severely lacking since the FJC study, making updated empirical analysis of class action trends difficult.

Read Full Post »

My partner, Casie Collignon, recently attended CLE International’s conference Class Actions: Plaintiff and Defense Perspectives in Chicago earlier this month, and she graciously agreed to share a summary of her notes.  Here they are for anyone who was unable to attend.  I’ll be attending the ABA’s 16th National Institute on Class Actions next week, so stay tuned for my notes from that conference as well.

On October 4th and 5th, esteemed panels of class action plaintiff and defense lawyers, along with multiple reputable class action administrators, gathered for panel discussions involving class action trends across the country from all perspectives. Below are just a few of the highlights from the conference:

  • Class Actions are not dead after DukesDukes may not have had the one-sided effect that everyone anticipated. Program Co-Director Francis Citera of Greenberg Traurig noted that class certification decisions after Dukes have been, despite popular opinion, very balanced.  In the federal courts since Dukes, there have been 32 cases certified, 33 denials of class certification, and 15 cases where certification was denied in part and granted in part.
  • Manageability remains key to certification – Even though the Dukes, Concepcion, and Comcast trends are on the tips of all class action practitioners’ tongues, manageability is still a top concern from all perspectives.  The Honorable William J.  Bauer of the Seventh Circuit opined about the importance of being able to be able to show the Court what a class action trial will actually look like.  This sentiment was echoed by plaintiff’s class action lawyer Kenneth Wexler of Wexler Wallace, who suggested that all plaintiffs’ class certification motions should be accompanied by an actual trial plan.  Defense attorney Sascha Henry of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton opined  that the defense practitioner can take advantage of both the existence of a plaintiff’s trial plan or the lack of a trial plan in the manageability context.  For example, if there is no trial plan at all, the defendant can argue that the plaintiffs   have not alleged a practical way to manage the case and therefore have not met their burden of proving the manageability requirement.  Alternatively, if a plan is submitted, then the defendant has a precise manageability roadmap to attack. 
  • New settlement notice program trends – While traditional mailers and post card notices still reign supreme for claim rates, Patrick Izie of Class Action Services discussed some new media trends in class action settlements.  He opined that new media, such as QR codes, mobile device notifications, and coupon websites can have a dramatic impact on your claims rates without increased costs. And, even though the parties may not have intended their class settlements to appear on websites such as duckydeals.com, once these types of sites start listing your class action settlements, you can expect claims rates to spike.
  • Class Certification may never truly be over –   Attorney for the plaintiff in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Linda Friedman of Stowell & Friedman, and class action defense lawyer Andrew Trask of McGuireWoods, both agreed that an important lesson to be learned from both the Merrill Lynch case and the recent denial of the motion to dismiss in the smaller Walmart case which is back pending in the Northern District of California, is that no ruling in the class certification context is ever truly permanent. Thus, the class action community should be on the lookout for second and even third bites at the apple with smaller proposed classes and arguments for issue class certification.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers