Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘class action’

Anyone still checking this site will have noticed a complete lack of new content lately, which is mostly the result of pure laziness on my part but partially due to the demands of several other writing projects I’ve been working on.  I’m pleased to announce that one of these articles it out, and the folks at Practical Law the Journal have graciously given permission for me to post a reprint here.  Click the following link to view the article, entitled Key Issues in Data Breach Litigation, which is featured in the October 2014 issue.  Please be sure to visit the Practical Law website to learn how to subscribe to more great content on timely legal topics.

Also, speaking of data privacy litigation, I’ll be part of a panel presenting on the topic at the ABA Institute on Class Actions next week in Chicago.  It’s not too late to register.

Read Full Post »

The ABA-sponsored annual National Institute on Class Actions is the premier CLE conference focusing on class action trends.  This year’s event will be held on October 23 and 24 in Chicago.  I will be participating on a panel discussing trends in privacy class actions, and there are a variety of other excellent panel presentations scheduled, including a program on business development for both plaintiff’s and defense attorneys.  This year’s Showcase Program is a Town Hall Meeting with the Rule 23 Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, so if you would like to have some input into the future of Rule 23, you’d best be in attendance!   For those of you who are new to class actions, Dan Karon and Drew McGuinness are reprising their second-to-none Class Actions 101 program.

For more information and to sign up for this excellent program, please click the link below.

http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Default.aspx?TabID=1444&productId=211246

 

Read Full Post »

After becoming one of the hottest trends during the latter part of the last decade, developments in international class action law have waned a bit over the past couple of years, but a new case may be changing that trend.  An Austrian law student, Max Schrems, made news earlier this week (see examples here and here) when he announced a “class action” against Facebook Ireland, the subsidiary that offers the popular social networking service outside of North America.  Schrems has filed a lawsuit in Austria seeking to pursue, on behalf of himself and other non-North American claimants, a variety of legal claims relating to Facebook’s use of consumer data as well as alleged illegal tracking and surveillance activity.  As reported yesterday by Natasha Lomas at Tech Crunch, more than 25,000 individuals have “joined” the lawsuit so far, by signing up at a website set up for that purpose and assigning their claims to Schrems.

This is by no means the first data privacy lawsuit ever filed against Facebook, and it is difficult to say at this point whether the legal claims have any prospect of success.  However, the case is intriguing from a procedural point of view because it is a suit seeking collective redress on behalf of thousands of non-North American consumers in a jurisdiction that is not known as a hotbed of class action litigation.  Many features of the case serve to illustrate differences between US-style class actions and “class actions” as they are developing in other parts of the world.  I’ve highlighted a few of them below.

Opt In Versus Opt Out

Outside common law jurisdictions like the United States, Canada, Israel, and Australia, collective action procedures generally follow an opt-in model, where each individual litigant has to take affirmative steps to participate in the lawsuit. This is a major distinction with the Rule 23 model followed in the United States, where a certified class binds all class members unless they expressly opt out of the case, and it creates a major limitation to the leverage created by grouping claims together.

Class Action through Private Contract and Novel Application of Existing Procedures

Many civil law countries lack an express mechanism for grouping large numbers of similar claims together into a single case except in very limited circumstances.  Even when specific collective action procedures exist, they can often be pursued only by a consumer association or government regulator rather than by private litigants.  Private litigants have filled the gap by entering into private agreements in which they group together on their own by assigning their individual claims contractually to a single plaintiff who will pursue the claims as a group.  Aggregation of claims by assignment has become a popular practical vehicle for pursuing group litigation, especially in continental Europe.

In Austria, a July 12, 2005 decision by the Austrian Supreme Court set out a two factor test for deciding whether assigned claims can proceed in a single case.  loosely translated, the standard requires that there be some central or significant question common to all claims, and that the factual and legal issues arising out of the individual claims be homogenous in nature as they relate to the common questions.  The Commercial Court of Vienna has applied this standard in several cases to make an initial determination of whether to “admit” the action, or in other words allow the assigned claims to proceed in a single case.  This initial evaluation does bear a resemblance to the class certification procedure applied under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to class actions in the U.S. courts.

For a more detailed description of the “Austrian-style class action” procedure, see Christian Klausegger‘s chapter on the subject in the World Class Actions book that I have shamelessly promoted on this blog since its publication in 2012.

Litigation Funding

In Austria, as in many other parts of the world, contingent fees are prohibited.  At the same time, however, court fees are often assessed based on the total amount in dispute, so the more money in dispute, the higher the fees are that have to be paid to the court, in addition to the hourly fees to be paid to counsel. These factors combined significantly limit the incentive to pursue collective litigation in these jurisdictions. They have also led litigants to have to look for alternative ways of funding litigation, the most prevalent of which is private litigation funding by a for-profit institution that is not itself a law firm.  The litigation funder finances the litigation, including payment of court fees and hourly attorney fees, in exchange for a contractual right to earn a profit if the litigation is successful.

Litigation funding is also available in the United States, but it has been slower to develop, primarily because contingent fees and agreements to advance litigation costs do not typically violate rules of ethics or public policy. In fact, the opposite is true: rules prohibiting fee-sharing with non-lawyers can make private litigation funding a tricky proposition in the United States.  As a result, private law firms have the financial means of funding litigation (either on their own or by associating with other firms) and are driven to pursue litigation without the need for financing through the promise of a percentage of the recovery if the case is successful.

The Impact of Morrison and Kiobel

The United States Supreme Court has issued two key recent decisions limiting foreign litigants’ access to the US Courts as a forum for pursuing class actions.  Limitations on access to the class action procedures available in the US courts may lead foreign litigants to experiment more frequently with alternatives  in foreign jurisdictions.  Whether the Facebook class action in Austria is part of a trend in this direction remains to be seen.

What Drives Claims for Collective Redress?

In the United States, the promise of a large contingent fee can incentivize an entrepreneurial lawyer with a creative legal theory to pursue class action litigation even in the absence of widespread public awareness of a perceived wrong.  The procedural and financial barriers to pursuing claims for collective redress largely prevent this phenomenon from occurring outside the United States, Canada, and a few other jurisdictions.  Instead, “class actions” can be pursued as a practical matter only when there is enough public outrage or concern over a particular event or business practice that large numbers of individuals are willing to take the time to participate (or when there is a sufficient number of institutional plaintiffs with the financial resources and incentive to pursue the suit, such as in certain securities fraud and competition/antitrust cases).  This means that both mainstream media and–somewhat ironically in the case of Facebook–social media have a necessary role in the success or failure of collective litigation abroad.

Read Full Post »

It’s not too late to register for this Thursday’s CLE program at the University of San Francisco.  See the particulars below.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO REGISTER

Who’s in Charge Here?: The Role of Lawyers, Clients, Insurers, and Judges in Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation

Presented by the Class Actions and Derivatives Suits, Consumer Litigation, and Mass Torts Committees

Thursday, June 19, 2014, 12:00pm – 7:00pm

University of San Francisco Law School, San Francisco, CA

FREE PARKING AND 2 ETHICS CREDITS!!

The Gulf Oil Spill, the 9-11 terrorist attacks, massive product recalls and credit card data breaches—these and other large-scale conflicts generate correspondingly massive litigation, requiring courts, parties, attorneys, and insurers to adapt to increasingly complex challenges.  For this half-day CLE event, we have assembled a distinguished group of judges, academics, mediators, and counsel to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing the various stakeholders.

Our all-star panels will explore ethical and other standards for selecting and evaluating named class representatives; coverage and other current issues surrounding consumer data breach class actions; the balancing of individual plaintiffs’ interests in settlement of mass tort cases; and cutting-edge case management techniques gleaned for among the most tragic mass disasters of our time—the 9-11 attacks and the Gulf Oil Spill.

We are pleased to feature the Hon. Alvin Hellerstein, U.S. District Court for the S.D. of New York—who presided over the 9-11 cases; the Hon. Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the N.D. of California; Tara Kelly, inside counsel at British Petroleum (Houston); Prof. Deborah Hensler of Stanford Law School; Assoc. Dean Joshua Davis of the University of San Francisco School of Law; Thomas Kang at the ACE Group (Los Angeles); and Jocelyn Larkin, Executive Director of the Impact Fund (Berkley), among our distinguished panelists.  Lunch will be provided, and the program will be followed by a sponsored cocktail hour, providing ample opportunities for networking.  Come join us for an enlightening afternoon!

Program Highlights:

  • Whose Class Is It Anyway? –The Policy, Practice, and Ethics Behind the Search for Named Plaintiffs (Ethics CLE Credit Applied for)
  • Recent Developments in Data Privacy Class Actions and Insurance Coverage
  • It’s The Trees Not the Forest – Considering Individual Interests in Mass Torts Settlements
  • Judicial Quasi-Class Actions – Managing MDL and mass tort litigation through judicial control over the appointment of lead counsel, attorneys’ fees, and cost-shifting

Faculty:

  • Hon Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York
  • Hon Jon S. Tigar, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Professor Joshua Davis, University of San Francisco Law School
  • Professor Deborah Hensler, Stanford University Law School
  • Tara Kelly, British Petroleum, Houston, Texas
  • Thomas Kang, ACE North American Professional Risk, Los Angeles
  • Catherine Yanni, JAMS, San Francisco
  • Jocelyn Larkin, Impact Fund, San Francisco
  • Sheila Birnbaum, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, New York
  • Paul Karlsgodt, BakerHostetler, Denver, Colorado (Program Co-Chair)
  • Linda D. Kornfeld, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Los Angeles
  • Karen Menzies, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Newport Beach
  • Andrew McGuinness, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Program Co-Chair)
  • Rudy Perrino, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Los Angeles
  • Rosemarie Ring, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco
  • Christina Terplan, Clyde & Co., San Francisco
  • Timothy Tomasik, Tomasik Kotin Kasserman, Chicago, Illinois
  • Donna L. Wilson, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles

Thanks to our Platinum Sponsors!

  • University of San Francisco School of Law
  • Heffler Claims Group
  • Gilardi & Co. LLC
  • Brown Claims Management Group
  • Garden City Group
  • Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

Gold Sponsors

  • BakerHostetler
  • Clyde & Co.

Read Full Post »

The California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association yesterday, addressing the use of statistical sampling as a way of evaluating aggregate liability and damages in a class action. Although Duran is a wage and hour case, its analysis is pertinent to the use of statistical evidence in a variety of other class action contexts.

In the opening line of his majority opinion, Justice Corrigan referred to Duran “an exceedingly rare beast” because it was a wage and hour class action that had proceeded all the way through trial to verdict.  In the trial court, the plaintiff had presented testimony from statistician Richard Drogin, who had also notably served as an expert for the plaintiffs in Walmart Stores Inc. v. Dukes.  Drogin proposed a random sampling analysis that purported to estimate the percentage of the defendant’s employees that had been misclassified for purposes of entitlement to overtime pay.  The trial court did not rely on Drogin’s analysis but instead came up with its own sampling approach, which involved pulling the names of 20 class members, hearing testimony from these witnesses along with the named plaintiffs, and then extrapolating the court’s factual findings across the entire class in order to determine the defendant’s liability.

The supreme court affirmed a decision by the Court of Appeal holding that this sampling approach violated due process and was a manifest abuse of discretion.  Generally, there were two independent reasons for the supreme court’s conclusion: 1) the use of random sampling deprived the defendant of the opportunity to present individualized evidence supporting its defenses to the claims; and 2) the sampling method adopted by the court was inherently flawed and unreliable.

Without categorically rejecting the use of statistics as a tool in managing class action litigation, the supreme court identified numerous conceptual limitations on its use.  First, “[s]tatistical methods cannot entirely substitute for common proof . . . .  There must be some glue that binds class members together apart from statistical evidence.”  So, while statistics may serve as circumstantial evidence to support a common issue–such as the existence of centralized policy or practice, they may not be used as a substitute for establishing commonality or for avoiding individualized determination of individual issues–such as by generalizing effects of a given policy or practice on large groups of claimants where the effects vary in actuality.

Second, a trial court cannot utilize statistical evidence in a way that prevents the individual adjudication of individual defenses.  Although courts are encouraged to develop innovative procedures in managing individual issues, a court cannot ignore individual issues altogether or prevent them from being decided on an individual basis.

Third, if statistical evidence is to be used as part of a litigation plan for managing complex class action, the methods to be employed should be presented, evaluated, and scrutinized at the class certification stage.  The court should not simply assume that statistical methods will permit class treatment and certify the class based on this hypothetical possibility.

Fourth, the court must ensure that the statistical method to be employed has to be reliable, based on statistically valid data, and not prone to a high margin of error.  In other words, junk science or ad hoc, rough justice are not enough.

The Duran opinion is worthy of careful study for anyone considering the use of statistics in class certification proceedings, both in the wage and hour context and in class actions more generally.  It also provides a colorful illustration of the due process and manageability problems posed by the “trial by formula” approach to class actions that the United States Supreme Court criticized in Dukes.

Read Full Post »

Readers, don’t miss this exciting upcoming regional CLE program in San Francisco.  It’s a great opportunity to network with judges, academics, in-house lawyers and private practitioners who share a passion for class actions and mass tort litigation.  See below for a link to the registration page.  Hope to see you there!

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO REGISTER

Who’s in Charge Here?: The Role of Lawyers, Clients, Insurers, and Judges in Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation

Presented by the Class Actions and Derivatives Suits, Consumer Litigation, and Mass Torts Committees

Date and Time: Thursday, June 19, 2014, 12:00pm – 7:00pm

Location: University of San Francisco Law School, San Francisco, CA

Synopsis:

The Gulf Oil Spill, the 9-11 terrorist attacks, massive product recalls and credit card data breaches—these and other large-scale conflicts generate correspondingly massive litigation, requiring courts, parties, attorneys, and insurers to adapt to increasingly complex challenges. For this half-day CLE event, we have assembled a distinguished group of judges, academics, mediators, and counsel to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing the various stakeholders.

Our all-star panels will explore ethical and other standards for selecting and evaluating named class representatives; coverage and other current issues surrounding consumer data breach class actions; the balancing of individual plaintiffs’ interests in settlement of mass tort cases; and cutting-edge case management techniques gleaned for among the most tragic mass disasters of our time—the 9-11 attacks and the Gulf Oil Spill.

We are pleased to feature the Hon. Alvin Hellerstein, U.S. District Court for the S.D. of New York—who presided over the 9-11 cases; the Hon. Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the N.D. of California; Tara Kelly, inside counsel at British Petroleum (Houston); Prof. Deborah Hensler of Stanford Law School; Assoc. Dean Joshua Davis of the University of San Francisco School of Law; and Jocelyn Larkin, Executive Director of the Impact Fund (Berkley), among our distinguished panelists. Lunch will be provided, and the program will be followed by a sponsored cocktail hour, providing ample opportunities for networking. Come join us for an enlightening afternoon.

Program Highlights:

  • Whose Class Is It Anyway? –The Policy, Practice, and Ethics Behind the Search for Named Plaintiffs (Ethics CLE Credit Applied for)
  • Recent Developments in Data Privacy Class Actions and Insurance Coverage
  • It’s The Trees Not the Forest – Considering Individual Interests in Mass Torts Settlements
  • Judicial Quasi-Class Actions – Managing MDL and mass tort litigation through judicial control over the appointment of lead counsel, attorneys’ fees, and cost-shifting

Faculty:

  • Hon Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York
  • Hon Jon S. Tigar, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Professor Joshua Davis, University of San Francisco Law School
  • Professor Deborah Hensler, Stanford University Law School
  • Tara Kelly, British Petroleum, Houston, Texas
  • Thomas Kang, ACE North American Professional Risk, Los Angeles
  • Catherine Yanni, JAMS, San Francisco
  • Jocelyn Larkin, Impact Fund, San Francisco
  • Sheila Birnbaum, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, New York
  • Paul Karlsgodt, BakerHostetler, Denver, Colorado (Program Co-Chair)
  • Linda D. Kornfeld, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Los Angeles
  • Karen Menzies, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Newport Beach
  • Andrew McGuinness, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Program Co-Chair)
  • Rudy Perrino, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Los Angeles
  • Rosemarie Ring, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco
  • Christina Terplan, Clyde & Co., San Francisco
  • Timothy Tomasik, Tomasik Kotin Kasserman, Chicago, Illinois
  • Donna L. Wilson, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles

Read Full Post »

After years of debate, France has finally passed its first “class action” law. Act No. 2014-344 of 17 March 2014 (relatif à la Consommation) went into effect on March 18. Chapter One of the new law introduces a new collective action procedure to adjudicate claims arising out of anti-competitive behavior and certain other consumer protection claims. Like the group action laws of many other civil law countries in Europe, the new procedure is very different from consumer class actions as they are known in the United States and other common law countries. The law creates a simplified opt-in collective action procedure that can only be enforced by an approved consumer association, not by individual litigants.  However, it is a significant development for a jurisdiction that has long resisted implementing collective action procedures of any kind.

Here is a link to the google translation of the Act in English.

Thanks to friend of ClassActionBlawg Larissa Clare Pochmann da Silva for tipping us off to this new development.

For a more detailed summary of the various aspects of the new law, see this Lexology article authored by Jérôme Philippe, Maria Trabucchi, Stephane Benouville, Dimitri Lecat and Alexandra Szekely of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers