Posts Tagged ‘class action CLE’

I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be chairing the Fourth Annual ABA Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts, to be held on June 16, 2017 at the offices of the Bar Association of San Francisco.  This year’s program features four presentations on hot topics in class action and mass tort litigation from an expert group of practitioners, academics, in-house counsel, and judges.  See below for summaries of the four presentations, and click the link below to see the full brochure and to register.  Hope to see you there!


Discovery Following the 2015 Federal Rules Amendments: What Does Proportionality Mean in the Class Action and Mass Tort Contexts?

It’s been about a year and a half since the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect, including amendments relating to proportionality governing both the scope discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) and preservation of potentially relevant ESI. But have the new rules changed the discovery available and relative obligations in class actions, mass torts, and other complex matters? This panel will review the purposes underlying the 2015 Amendments and how the law has been developing so far, and it will offer insights into best practices in expanding or limiting discovery in the class action and mass tort contexts.

Killer Class Actions or Endangered Species?

The United States Supreme Court has in recent years addressed an unprecedented number of issues related to class actions, ranging from “no injury” class actions to “trial by formula.” The panel of experienced class action practitioners will discuss the changing class action landscape and the potential lasting impact.

The Use of Expert Evidence in Class Actions: Effective Strategies and Pitfalls

The importance of expert testimony in class actions continues to increase, for example in connection with measuring class wide effects and satisfying class certification gate-keeping threshold questions. Topics to be discussed include 1) use of surveys in consumer class actions, when they are effective and how they can influence a case; 2) what can be learned from rare successful challenges about the utility of Daubert challenges in class action cases; 3) the challenges associated with the increasing technical requirements for class certification and implications of the importance of expert evidence on cases; 4) lessons learned and experience working with experts in class action matters.

Big Brother, Information Privacy, and Class Actions: How Big Data and Social Media are Changing the Class Action Landscape

Almost everyone has a smart phone these days, even your grandparents have social media accounts, and the amount of personal information that is generated about the average consumer on a daily basis is astronomical and growing exponentially. This panel will explore ways in which the emergence of big data and social media are impacting consumer class actions. Topics to be discussed include 1) consumer class actions that may arise from companies’ collection, use, or transfer of large amounts of consumer data; 2) changing attitudes on privacy of consumer data in the age of social media; and 3) the benefits and pitfalls of using social media and internet advertising in class action notice programs.

Read Full Post »

I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be chairing the ABA’s 2nd Annual Western Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts.  The event is co-sponsored by the Section of Litigation’s Class Actions and Derivative Suits, Mass Torts, and Securities Litigation Committees, as well as the San Francisco Bar Association, which will host the event.  It will be held the afternoon of Friday, June 19, 2015, in San Francisco, California.

The program will begin with lunch at noon and will end at 5:20, followed by a sponsored cocktail reception.  The location is 301 Battery Street, Third Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.

Our esteemed faculty of judges, academics, and practitioners from both sides of the bar will present four panel presentations on timely class-action-related topics, including:

  1. Class action ethics
  2. Proposed amendments to Rule 23
  3. Food labeling class actions
  4. The use of expert witnesses in securities class actions after the Supreme Court’s Halliburton decision

Online registration is now open!  Please click this link to register and for more information.

I hope to see you there.

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

 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

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 »

John B. Isbister, founder and chair of the ABA’s annual National Institute on Class Actions, graciously agreed to offer his insights into this year’s programs, the history of the event, and trends in class action litigation generally.  This year’s two programs are being offered in San Fransisco on October 30, 2009 and Washington, D.C. on November 20, 2009.  My Q & A with John follows.  Be sure to check out the links for sample audio clips from last year’s program.

What excites you most about this year’s Institute? 

There are a lot of changes in class action practice right now.  Hot issues include many of the issues that we are examining at the National Institute.  For example, the litigation about arbitration clauses with class action waivers and the changing law on class certification standards (the shift from “some showing” to preponderance of the evidence) will both be examined at the National Institute.  All of these changes are court driven; as opposed to many of the changes in the past that were a function of changes to Rule 23 and CAFA.  Court driven changes are things that can be affected by lawyers, so there is the opportunity for good lawyers to have a real  impact on how Courts deal with these issues.  We are very fortunate to have as speakers some of the best lawyers in the country who are dealing with these issues.  My hope is that the National Institute will make all of the people who attend better able to serve their clients and better handle these cutting edge issues.

Why the decision to split the Institute into two separate programs this year?

This is “customer driven.”  We wanted to do a program in California–an area that has a lot of class litigation.   However, we recognized that in today’s economy a California program probably would not attract many lawyers from the East Coast.  So we decided to do both an East Coast and a West Coast program to satisfy both markets.

Which one should I attend, the one in D.C. or the one in San Francisco? 

Both cover substantially the same material and both have a great faculty.  The difference is that the San Francisco National Institute has a program on California class actions.  If an attorney does a lot of California class actions, the San Francisco program will have a special attraction. For those who want a taste of what the Institute is like, we’ve recently posted audio from the rigorous analysis standard and consumer fraud class actions in federal court sessions at last year’s conference.

What do you see as the emerging trends in class action law?  

An increase in the difficulty in getting a class certified–primarily driven by the shift from “some showing” standard to the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof  standard.  I think this moves the discovery and litigation of a number of issues to the front of a case that at earlier times would have only been contested at trial.  This sets the stage for a battle of experts at the class certification stage, which is also something we’re covering online this month.  It also enables defendants, who traditionally are reluctant to go to trial in a class action to litigate these issues at a preliminary stage.  

How about trends in class action filings? 

While I think it is harder to get a class certified, I do not think this has slowed filings of class cases.  Class action plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to be creative in using this procedural device to look for ways to economically litigate large numbers of claims that probably could not be litigated on their own. The sub-prime/financial crisis sparked a record number of new class action filings.

This is the 13th year for the Institute.  Why do you think this program has been so successful for so long? 

We have consistently identified and addressed current issues in the area of class litigation.  We have also consistently attracted the best lawyers, academics and Judges to be on our facility.  This year we are again privileged to have Professor John C. Coffee open the program. Professor Coffee is one of the most quoted sources in the news on topics related to securities litigation, the financial crisis and class actions in those areas.  His presentation is an overview on developments in class litigation always gets  rave reviews and sets the stage for the rest of the day.  This year Professor Arthur Miller–the guy who wrote the book on civil procedure–will moderate a discussion with  three experienced federal Judges on current issues in class litigation.   John Beisner and Elizabeth Cabraser–two of the most respected defense and plaintiffs’ lawyers respectively will be together discussing changing class certification standards–you can’t get better speakers than those two.  Finally, this program is a great bargain. Attendees get a full day’s worth of CLE credit (including some ethics credit), they get to have lunch and network with other class action practitioners, and they get a great book of written material.  We  also have some nice discounts for members of the American Bar Association, and  particularly  members of the ABA Section of Litigation.

Read Full Post »

The ABA’s 13th Annual National Institute on Class Actions, the gold standard in class action CLE conferences, is coming up this fall.  This year’s format is a little different.  They will be holding two sessions, one on each coast.  The dates and locations are:

Friday, October 30, 2009
San Francisco, CA
8:00 AM – 5:00 PM PT

Friday, November 20, 2009
Washington, DC
8:00 AM – 5:00 PM ET   
According to program founder and chair, John Isbister:

Each session will begin with the popular presentation by Professor John C. Coffee on new developments in class action litigation.  Also, on the agenda are programs that examine issues concerning arbitration and class action waivers, recent developments in the standards for certifying a class, and advice for both plaintiffs and defense counsel on settling class actions.  The session in San Francisco will include a program on the class action landscape in California courts, while the Washington, DC session will feature a roundtable discussion on current issues in class actions with three federal judges moderated by Professor Arthur R. Miller.

It sounds like you can’t go wrong with either option, so start making your reservations now.  A full description of the programs and the speakers is in the program brochure, which is also available on the web registration site:  http://www.abanet.org/cle/programs/n09cac1.html

I’ll have some comments on each of the topics and sessions over the coming weeks.  Stay tuned…

Read Full Post »

The Securities and Class Actions subsections of the Colorado Bar Association litigation are co-sponsoring a half-day CLE in connection with CLE Colorado, to be held the morning of July 24 at the CBA offices in Denver.

The seminar will examine trends in litigation arising out of the current economic crisis in three key areas: securities, ERISA, and consumer class actions.  I’ll post more information and a link to registration information as it becomes available.

Read Full Post »

I got an email the other day about LSI’s 5th Annual Litigating Class Actions conference.  I’ve been to this seminar in the past and thought it was very well done.  I can’t make it this year, but for anyone interested I thought I’d pass along the details:

Litigating Class Actions – 5th Annual Conference
May 7 & 8, 2009
Seattle, WA (Renaissance Seattle Hotel)

Class actions dominate the litigation landscape and our Fifth Annual Conference on Litigating Class Actions will look at today’s “hot issues”, including consumer class actions from the plaintiff’s and defendant’s perspectives and significant court decisions and trends. Hear how you should assess matters for prefiling; litigating class actions between certifica tion and trial; the use of experts; considerations for labor and employment class actions; trial strategies and approaches; avoiding ethical traps; views from the bench on problematic issues; and more.

Sign up soon. Here is an opportunity for valuable discussion with your peers and our distinguished faculty. Download the complete program agenda or register by clicking here.

Program Chairs: Thomas L. Boeder, Esq. of Perkins Coie LLP and Timothy G. Fielden, Esq. of Microsoft Corporation

Intended Audience
Corporate and trial attorneys, corporate executives and governmental officials responsible for managing class actions litigation

Register here or call us at (800) 854-8009

Credits Available:

  • WA CLE 12.25 inc 1 ethics
  • CA MCLE 12.5 inc 1 ethics
  • Others available upon request; please call for details
  • Read Full Post »

    If you’re a Colorado attorney who didn’t make it to the quarterly CLE luncheon sponsored by the CBA class actions subsection, you missed out.  Dirk W. de Roos and O. Russel Murray gave excellent presentations on developments in class arbitration.  If you’d still like to hear the entire presentation, you’re in luck.  CLE Colorado recorded the audio of the presentation and will include it among its home-study materials.  We’ll have a link on the class action subsection website as soon as it is available.  In the meantime, here are some of the key points:

    • Class arbitration waivers, contracts requiring arbitration but specifying that arbitration proceed on an individual, not class, basis, have been used in a variety of contracts, including employment, executive compensation, consumer, franchise, and settlement agreements.
    • Outside the consumer context, class arbitration waivers have mostly been upheld.
    • Where class arbitration waivers are invalidated, courts most often do so based on traditional contract principles.
    • Class arbitration waivers are increasingly being struck down in consumer agreements, especially in “shrink-wrap” type agreements where the consumer is agreeing simply by using the product.
    • The key U.S. Supreme Court case recognizing the viability of class arbitration (not waivers) is Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S., 444 (2003).
    • Class arbitration rules generally track FRCP 23, the main difference being that the decision maker is a private neutral instead of a judge.
    • Class arbitration rules differ from traditional arbitration because they lack the key element of privacy and confidentiality.

    Each of the speakers had insights that I thought were interesting:

    Dirk de Roos noted that a split among jurisdictions on the enforceability of class arbitration waivers may impact whether a nationwide class can be certified in court over a particular issue given the need to apply different standards to decide whether the action can proceed in court as a class action in the first place.

    Russel Murray commented that class arbitration involves a convergence of two more general, controversial issues: 1) many people have an animosity toward class actions and favor ways to limit their application and effectiveness, but, on the other hand  2) many other people have deep concerns about the use of arbitration provisions in consumer agreements and are opposed to agreements that potentially limit the ability of consumers to enforce their rights.

    Finally, here is one other item worthy of note.  Russel Murray noted that the National Arbitration Forum rules allow collective resolution of claims only on an opt-in basis, as opposed to the opt-out scheme contemplated by Rule 23 and most other class arbitration rules.  This means that only those plaintiffs who affirmatively opt in to the class after notice. 

    The possibility of class arbitration agreements that involve restrictions on class actions less than a complete waiver of the right to bring the case on a collective basis is intriguing.  Imagine a cell phone company including a standard term in its agreements that every claim is subject to class arbitration but that the action would proceed under the National Arbitration Forum rules.  This provision would not be a class arbitration waiver in the strict sense, but it would involve a significant limitation on the ability of a plaintiff to seek collective redress as compared to a class action in court.   As far as I know, the enforceability of this type of class arbitration “reduction” provision has not been tested in court.

    Read Full Post »

    I’m pleased to report that the Colorado Bar Association Class Action, Derivative Suits, and Mass Torts Subsection has scheduled its Fall 2008 CLE Luncheon for December 16.  Dirk de Roos of Faegre & Benson will speak on class arbitration waivers and O. Russel Murray of ADR Source will talk about class arbitration generally.

    Here are the particulars:

    Legal Trends and Best Practices in Class Arbitration

    Tuesday, December 16, 2008

    CBA Offices, 1900 Grant Street, 9th Floor,
    Capitol Conference Room Denver, CO 80203

    Class arbitration waivers are clauses in contracts requiring that disputes be arbitrated, and prohibit claims from being brought as class actions.  Whether class arbitration waivers are enforceable, especially in consumer contracts, has been a hotly contested issue in the courts in recent years.  Where class arbitration waivers are not enforceable or are enforceable only in part, parties my find themselves litigating their dispute as a class action but in an arbitration setting rather than a court.  This program will cover trends, best practices, and recent decisions relating to class arbitration and class arbitration waivers.  Some of the topics to be addressed include:

    • Trends in decisions on the enforceability of class arbitration waivers.
    • How are the Colorado courts likely to rule on class arbitration waivers?
    • What does a class arbitration look like?  How is it different from a class action?
    • Who is bound by an arbitrator’s decision in class arbitration?
    • Can the loser of a class arbitration appeal?

    The cost of the luncheon is $15.00 for Litigation Section members, $20.00 for Non-Members.

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

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

    Read Full Post »

    As promised, here are some highlights of my notes from Friday’s 12th Annual National Institute on Class Actions:

    What are the Hot Trends in Class Actions?

    Following an introduction from Tydings & Rosenberg partner and National Institute on Class Actions founder and John B. Isbister, Columbia Law Professor John C. Coffee kicked things off with his annual review of developments in federal class action law.  His review covered trends and key decisions over the past five years or so.  He identified several key areas that he believes are likely to be addressed in the federal courts in the near future.  They include:

    1. Who has the burden of proof in establishing or disproving the elements of class certification?  Is a mini-trial necessary in which the court makes determinations of fact?  If so, then what is the standard of proof?  Is burden-shifting appropriate in certain cases?
    2. Under what circumstances is class certification appropriate under FRCP 23(b)(2) in “hybrid” class actions in which both damages and declaratory or injunctive relief are sought?  What types of damages are “incidental” to equitable relief for the purpose of allowing certification under FRCP 23(b)(2)?
    3. Are civil RICO wire or mail fraud claims appropriate as an alternative to state fraud and consumer protection claims?  Is reliance a required element?  Can reliance be presumed?
    4. Is partial or issue class certification available if predominance cannot be proved as to all aspects of a given cause of action?  Does partial class certification violate due process?
    5. Can company-wide, multi-job employment discrimination claims be certified as class actions?
    6. Are class arbitration waivers enforceable?

    Which Decisions Are Class Action Lawyers and Commentators Talking About Most?

    Here are some of the recent key decisions highlighted by Professor Coffee and others during the conference:

    Highlights of Panel Discussions

    “CAFA & Consequences: Measuring the Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005”

    This panel, moderated by Arnold & Porter partner Fern O’Brien, included panelists John H. Beisner of O’Melveny, Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Searles, and the Honorable Fred Biery, U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas.

    One of the key topics discussed by the panel was the impact of CAFA in encouraging filings in federal court and the resulting increase in the assignment of cases to the multi-district litigation (MDL) panel.  Class action practitioners will have to become more familiar with the MDL process as more class actions are filed or removed to the federal courts.

    One of the panelists noted that although the number of class actions filed in federal court has increased, the number of “negative value” cases in the federal courts have not increased.  “Negative value” is a term used to describe class actions involving claims where individual amounts in dispute would be far less than the amount necessary to litigate them.

    The panel also discussed recent cases addressing the meaning of the “mass tort” provision, which subjects certain mass tort cases to CAFA even if they are not technically “class actions.”

    “Consumer Fraud Class Actions on Life Support”

    This panel was moderated by Scott L. Nelson, and attorney for the Public Citizen’s litigation group.  The panelists were Nelson’s fellow Public Citizen lawyer Deepak Gupta, Greenberg Traurig partner Donald R. Frederico, and Quarles & Brady partner Cristina Hernandez-Malaby.

    The Honorable Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York had also been scheduled to be on the panel, but word was that he tied up with a capital murder case.

    The main focus of the panel’s discussion was the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in McLaughlin, in which it reversed Judge Weinstein’s certification of a class of purchasers of “light” cigarettes on a “fraud on the market” theory of common injury.  They also covered Judge Weinstein’s more recent decision in In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 04-MD-1596, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2008), in which the Judge appeared to be testing the limits of the McLaughlin holding.  For of us who are too busy or lazy to read all 300 pages of the decision, Ms. Hernandez-Malaby suggests starting at page 230.

    The panel also covered several other topics, including

    • Superiority analysis in “no-damages” class actions under FACTA.
    • RICO claims as an alternative to traditional consumer fraud claims.
    • Claims claiming injury due to reliance by others.

    “Unpacking the ‘Rigorous Analysis’ Standard”

    This panel, moderated by NYU Professor Geoffrey Miller, included James P. Muehlenberger and the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.  UPDATE 11-10-08: The third panelist was David S. Stellings, an able replacement for his partner, Elizabeth Cabraser.

    The panelists discussed the approaches taken by the various federal Circuit Courts of Appeals in applying the “rigorous analysis” standard for ruling on class certification and provided their views from a plaintiff’s, defendant’s, and judge’s perspective.  Key decisions discussed included:

    “I Could Have Sworn It Was CAFA, Not Kafka!”  The Metamorphosis of Ethically Prosecuting, Defending, and Settling Multi-State, Class-Action Cases — A Surreal-Life, Three-Act Play.” 

    I couldn’t begin to describe this presentation in a way that would do it justice, but let’s just say that it was both entertaining and surprisingly true to life.  The play starred its creator, plaintiffs’ lawyer Daniel R. Karon, his colleage on the plaintiffs’ side, Vincent J. Esades, defense lawyers Cari K. Dawson and Steven Glickstein, and notice administrator Katherine Kinsella.

    “Class Actions Sans Frontières”

    The day ended with the presentation that I had been anticipating most eagerly, a panel discussion on developments in global and multinational class actions.  Sylvie Rodrigue of Ogilvy Renault in Toronto led an intriguing discussion of this new and fast-developing area, with a panel that included Cohen Milstein partner, Lynda Grant, former managing partner of Shook Hardy & Bacon’s London office, Laurel Harbour, McCarthy Tétrault’s David I.W. Hamer, and Charles Wright, of Siskinds in London, Ontario.

    Here are a summary of the key issues discussed:

    • Worldwide class action settlements can be risky due to problems with the ability to enforce foreign judgments that purport to bind class members in other countries.
    • “Foreign cubed” securities class actions are a hot topic.   The Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., supra, appears to limit the circumstances in which these cases can be brought in the U.S. court, but the court also refused to adopt a bright-line rule that would prohibit all “foreign cubed” class actions.
    • The International Bar Association has created a task force charged with preparing guidlines for when foreign class action judgments can be enforced.
    • Class certification guidelines in Canadian provinces tend to be more relaxed than those in the U.S., and class certification decisions in Canadian courts often come sooner than in U.S. courts when parallel proceedings are filed.
    • Group action procedures in Europe are expanding but are still not in wide use.
    • A task force has been created to look into protocols for coordination between U.S. and Canadian courts in parallel actions.
    • General counsel for multinational companies need to consider exposure on a global basis when making settlement decisions, not just U.S. exposure.
    • Developments in class action law in Canada have made pursuing a joint litigation strategy in both Canada and the U.S. financially and legally viable, as opposed to just a few years ago, when a case may have been worth pursuing only if it could somehow be brought in U.S. courts.
    • Increased coordination between plaintiffs’ counsel, outside counsel for defendants, and judges will become ever more important in the future.

    Summary Notes

    Overall, this was one of the better class action CLE conferences that I have attended.  The speakers were all top-notch practitioners, academics, or judges who provided a well-rounded range of perspectives.  The topics were all timely and interesting.  If you have the means, consider attending next year.  If you’re interested in purchasing the audio from this year’s event, it should be available within a few weeks according to the ABA’s website.

    Read Full Post »

    Older Posts »