Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘regression analysis’

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 »

My partner, Bob Abrams, sent me a copy of the order granting Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification in Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, an antitrust class action brought on behalf of dairy farmers alleging monopolization and a conspiracy to fix milk prices by various milk cooperatives and processors.  Abrams’ team has been appointed as class counsel for one of the subclasses certified as part of the order. 

The opinion includes an interesting analysis of at least two important issues: First, the extent to which intra-class conflicts of interest can prevent class certification and the extent to which the creation of subclasses can remedy those conflicts; and Second, the extent to which a defendant can avoid class certification in an antitrust case by pointing out alleged flaws in the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion that a common, class-wide antitrust injury exists or by presenting conflicting expert testimony.  The second issue is one that may be clarified when the Supreme Court rules later this term on Comcast v. Behrend.

Read Full Post »

It’s not too late to sign up for this Thursday’s Strafford Publications Webinar, entitled Statistics in Class Action Litigation: Admissibility and the Impact of Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  Click the link on the title of the program for more information and to sign up.

For anyone looking for sneak preview, here are the program materials, which were are the result of the joint efforts of my co-presenters, Brian Troyer of Thompson Hine and Justin Hopson of Hitachi Consulting, and me.  We hope you can make it!

Read Full Post »

I’m very excited to be speaking at an upcoming Strafford Publications CLE webinar entitled: Statistics in Class Action Litigation: Admissibility and the Impact of Wal-Mart v. Dukes.   The program is scheduled for Thursday, October 6, at  1:00pm-2:30pm EDT.  This is a beefed up version of a presentation that Justin Hopson and I did for the Colorado Bar Association class actions subsection earlier this year.  Brian Troyer of Thompson Hine in Cleveland will be joining us this time around.  Here’s a synopsis of the program, followed by a link to the registration page:

As class certification standards have become more rigorous, the use of statistical evidence in certification proceedings has become an integral part of class action litigation. Effectively using or challenging statistics can be the difference between winning and losing a class certification motion.

Since statistical evidence is introduced through expert witness testimony, 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 prominent role of statistical evidence in class certification is underscored in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The Court weighed in on both the level of statistical proof to sustain certification as well as the appropriate standard for a Daubert analysis.

My fellow panelists and I will provide class action counsel with a review of the Court’s treatment of statistical evidence and expert testimony in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, discuss admissibility and use of statistics in certification proceedings, and outline strategies for using statistics and cross-examining statistics witnesses.

We will offer our perspectives and guidance on these and other critical questions:

  • How did the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v. Dukes address the level of Daubert analysis at the class certification stage?
  • What types of statistics can be introduced and what are the proper ways to utilize statistics?
  • What strategies can counsel use to effectively cross-examine statistics witnesses?
  • What are the recent trends in the use of statistical evidence to support a class certification motion?

After our presentations, we will engage in a live question and answer session with participants — so we can answer your questions about these important issues directly.

I hope you’ll join us.

For more information or to register, click here

Read Full Post »

Colorado litigators, I hope you will consider attending our next Class Action Subsection Luncheon scheduled for next Thursday, June 30, 2011 at noon.  The topic is “Statistics in the Courtroom.”  I will be presenting the law, and my co-presenter, Justin Hopson of Hitachi Consulting, will  be presenting the science.  Among other things, we will analyze the Supreme Court’s treatment of statistical evidence in the recent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decision.  I hope you can make it.  A program description follows.

CBA – Class Action Sub-Section LUNCHEON

CBA Offices, 1900 Grant Street, 9th Floor,

Executive Conference Room Denver, CO 80203

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Topic: “Statistics in the Courtroom”

 

As the standards of proof for class certification have become more rigorous over the past few years, the use of statistical evidence in class certification proceedings has become a growing trend.  For the practitioner, this means that knowing when and how to use statistics can be the difference between winning and losing a class certification motion. 

 

In Part I of this Program, Paul Karlsgodt of Baker Hostetler will discuss the legal principles involved and case law dealing with the admissibility and use of statistics in the courtroom, especially in class certification proceedings.

 

In Part II, Justin Hopson of Hitachi Consulting will discuss the types of statistics that can be used in the courtroom, what statistics mean, how statistics can and cannot not be used, and tips for cross-examining statistics experts.

 

1 General CLE Credit Applied for.

Registration for the Luncheon begins at 11:30 a.m.
The Luncheon will begin at 12:00 PM.

To RSVP for the Luncheon:
Call 303.860.1115, X727 or SEND AN E-MAIL TO LUNCHES@COBAR.ORG, PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND Class Action luncheon in your e-mail.

Please register by Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Noon.

If sending a check please make it out to Colorado Bar Association, Class Action Sub Section, 1900 Grant Street, Suite 900, Denver, CO 80203.  Please also call or e-mail in your reservation when sending a check.
**Cancellations can be made only by calling 303.860.1115, X727 or by e-mail to mailto:lunches@cobar.org.**
Cancellations after Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Noon, will be responsible for payment.

The cost of the luncheon is $15.00 for Litigation Section members, $25.00 for Non-Members. Vegetarian meals must be requested when making reservation. 

Call-in option will be $5, please RSVP to lunches@cobar.org, and indicate that you would like to call-in.  Instructions for the call-in will be sent out before the luncheon. 

 

Read Full Post »

I’m embarrassingly late in reporting on them, but I would be remiss if I did not mention two key recent United States Circuit Courts of Appeals decisions addressing the legal standards governing class certification under FRCP 23:

In American Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, No. 09-8051 (7th Cir., April 7, 2010) the Seventh Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a Daubert inquiry into the admissibility of expert testimony before relying on that testimony in determining that the plaintiff had met his burden of establishing the elements of class certification. 

Meanwhile, in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Nos. 04-16688 and 04-16720 (9th Cir., April 26, 2010) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that circuit’s standards for conducting the “rigorous analysis” necessary to determine whether the elements of Rule 23 are satisfied.  Following extensive discussion of the history of class certification standards both outside and within the Ninth Circuit, the court articulated class certification standards that essentially mirror those recognized in the Second Circuit’s decision in In re IPO Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006).  However, applying those standards, the court came to a very different result, affirming certification of a nationwide class of thousands of female employees seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay, and punitive damages arising out of allegedly common, discriminatory employment practices.

Both decisions are worthy of careful reading and study, and you will no doubt hear more about both decisions in the weeks and months ahead.

Read Full Post »

If you’re in the need for CLE credits, or simply just want to keep up on some of the hottest topics in class action litigation, here’s an upcoming program that you should consider.  Although the program ostensibly covers antitrust class actions, many of the concepts will be applicable to consumer and securities class actions as well.  Thanks to Elizabeth Roche of the Analysis Group for sending me a tip about this intriguing upcoming program:

Proving Common Impact in Antitrust Class Actions: Current Legal and Economic Thinking
May 12, 2010
8:00 AM – 9:30 AM (CST)
Gleacher Center, 450 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Chicago, Illinois

Description:
 With issues raised by the Hydrogen Peroxide Litigation far from settled and the recent affirmation of class in Wal-Mart en banc, economic guidance in addressing proof of common impact is essential. Our panelists will review the legal landscape defined by these landmark cases and offer a systematic way of approaching common methods of proof, including:

  • The legal challenges of class certification in light of the recent affirmation of class in Dukes v.Wal-Mart and In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, with an update on the 9th and 3rd circuits
  • Assessment of merits and whether economic damages can be assessed at the class level
  • A systematic approach to testing whether regression analysis offers a common method of proof to assist the courts in assessing class certification

Panelists:
Edward A. Snyder, Ph.D., Dean and George Shultz Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
John W. Treece
, Esq., Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Pierre Y. Cremieux, Ph.D., Managing Principal, Analysis Group
Andrew Wong, Ph.D., Managing Principal, Analysis Group (moderator)

REGISTER: http://www.analysisgroup.com/common_impact_seminar.aspx

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers