the Amgen and Comcast Decisions Navigating the Issues of Predominance and the Role of the Merits Inquiry at Certification
|
|
- Garey Eustace Golden
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Class Action Certification Following the Amgen and Comcast Decisions Navigating the Issues of Predominance and the Role of the Merits Inquiry at Certification TUESDAY, APRIL 16, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Td Today s faculty features: Deborah H. Renner, Partner, Baker & Hostetler, New York Andrew J. Trask, Counsel, McGuire Woods, London, England The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.
2 Tips for Optimal Quality Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box
4 Program Materials If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the + sign next to Conference Materials in the middle of the left- hand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
5 Class Certification After Amgen and Comcast Strafford Webinar April 16, 2013 Deborah H. Renner
6 Introduction The Supreme Court s recent Amgen and Comcast decisions take different approaches to predominance and on where to draw the line between class and merits issues. Reflect struggle between liberals l and conservatives on ease of class certification. Reflect continued difficulty in drawing the line between class and merits issues in the wake of Eisen. 6
7 Amgen: Background Connecticut Retirement alleged that Amgen artificially inflated the market price for its stock by making misrepresentations regarding the safety of two Amgen products. The district court certified ed a money damages ages class allowing Connecticut Retirement to establish through its pleading alone that the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance criterion was met as to classwide reliance through the Basic fraud-on-the-market presumption. 7
8 Amgen: Background The district court held that Connecticut Retirement could invoke Basic s presumption of reliance because to trigger the presumption, Connecticut Retirement t need only establish that t an efficient i market exists. The district court held that: [T]he inquiries Defendants urge the Court to make do not concern the requirements of Rule 23, but instead concern the merits of the case. 8
9 Amgen: Background On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Connecticut Retirement had only to allege materiality with sufficient plausibility to withstand a 12(b)(6) motion. Materiality was thus viewed as a merits issue: materiality is an element of the merits of [a] securities fraud claim, whereas other Basic requirements are not. Because materiality need not be proven at the class stage, rebuttal evidence was not allowed. 9
10 Amgen: Background The Circuits had been split on whether e materiality was a class or merits issue. The Ninth Circuit in Amgen and the Seventh Circuit in Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679 (7 th Cir. 2010), had held that materiality was a merits question. 10
11 Amgen: Background The Second and Fifth Circuits had held ed that plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged misrepresentation is material before a class may be certified. In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig.,, 544 F.3d 474 (2d Cir. 2008); Oscar Private Equity Invs. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc.,, 487 F.3d 261 (5 th Cir. 2007). 11
12 Amgen: Background The Third Circuit gave defendant e da the opportunity to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption, p by demonstrating a lack of materiality at the class phase. In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig.,, 639 F.3d 623 (3d Cir. 2011). 12
13 Amgen: Decision The Supreme e Court granted certiorari to address two issues: (1) whether a Rule 10b- 5 plaintiff was required to present proof of materiality for a class to be certified based on the fraud-on-the-market presumption; p and (2) whether the court must also consider a defendant s rebuttal evidence on the same issue before certifying a class. 13
14 Amgen: Decision Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the Court, holding: Because materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of fa Amgen s alleged misrepresentations and omissions is a question common to all members of the class.... The alleged misrepresentations and omissions, whether material or immaterial, would be equally so for all investors composing the class. 14
15 Amgen: Decision The Court admitted that it has come out differently on different aspects of the Basic factors, e.g., whether a named plaintiff must establish that he or she executed trades at the relevant time. Justice Ginsburg reasoned that that aspect of the Basic presumption goes to the Rule 23(a)(3) and (4) criteria of typicality and adequacy of representation, making them preliminary inquiries appropriate for the certification decision. 15
16 Amgen: Decision As to a defendant s e da ability to rebut materiality allegations at the class phase, the Court held that: just as a plaintiff class s inability to prove materiality creates no risk that individual questions will predominate, so even a definitive rebuttal on the issue of materiality would not undermine the predominance of questions common to the class. 16
17 Amgen: Decision Speaking to the Eisen question, Justice Ginsburg reasoned: Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage g in free-ranging g merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered to the extent but only to the extent that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied. 17
18 Amgen: Decision Justice Thomas filed a dissent in which he interpreted Basic as requiring proof of materiality in order to get the benefit of the fraud-on-the-market presumption at the class certification state. He reasoned that, without the presumption of reliance, questions of reliance are individualized: Without materiality, there is no fraud-on-the-market presumption, questions of reliance remain individualized, and Rule 23(b)(3) certification is impossible. 18
19 Amgen: Decision Justice Scalia, meanwhile, in his own dissent, reasoned that the Basic decision itself applied to class certification and that it was thus improper to confine it to the merits stage of the action. Moreover, e he urged that allowing a plaintiff to meet the Basic presumption purely through a pleading is contrary to the rigorous analysis called for in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) and previous Supreme Court cases. 19
20 Comcast Corp. v. Behrend Andrew Trask McGuireWoods London
21 Behrend v. Comcast in a Nutshell Antitrust t case; alleged that t Comcast had monopolized markets for cable services in Philadelphia area. Four different theories of liability: (1) Clustering: Allowed Comcast to withhold local sports programming, reducing competition from satellite. (2) Overbuilding: discouraged competing cable networks. (3) Reduced benchmark: Less competition means less price comparison. (4) Clustering: increased Comcast's s bargaining power relative to content providers 21
22 District court certified the overbuilder theory Only theory capable of classwide proof. Problem: Plaintiffs had only one expert, John McClave. His report calculated damages ($875,576,662) based on all four theories. Admitted he could not isolate damages from overbuilding. 22
23 Predominance post-dukes Difference between predominance and commonality unclear: The Court blends Rule 23(a)(2)'s threshold criterion with the more Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. demanding criteria of Rule Ct , 2566 (2011) 23(b)(3). (Ginsburg, J. dissenting). The Court's emphasis on differences between class members mimics the Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry into whether common questions predominate over individual issues. 23
24 Third Circuit on predominance Predominance tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. It is a test readily met in certain cases alleging consumer or securities fraud or violations of the antitrust t laws, but a court may not relax its certification analysis as to each element of Rule 23. To assess whether common or individual issues predominate, a district court must examine the nature of the evidence and formulate some prediction as to how specific issues will play out. Behrend v. Comcast Corp.,, 655 F.3d 182, 191 (3d Cir. 2011) (emphases added, internal citations & quotations omitted). 24
25 Third Circuit viewed expert reports as preliminary [A]lthough the Supreme Court recently hinted that Daubert may apply for evaluating expert testimony at the class certification stage, [w]e understand the Court's observation to require a district court to evaluate whether an expert is presenting a model which could evolve to become admissible evidence, and not requiring a district court to determine if a model is perfect at the certification stage. stage [w]e understand the Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182, 205 n.13 (3d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added, internal quotation omitted). 25
26 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine the role of experts Whether a district i t court may certify a class action without t resolving whether the plaintiff class had introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a classwide basis. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *10 n.4 (Mar. 27, 2013). 26
27 But Comcast had not objected to the admissibility ibilit of the damages model on Daubert grounds. 27
28 So the question became role of predominance. The same analytical principles govern Rule 23(b). If anything, Rule 23(b)(3) s predominance criterion is even more demanding than Rule 23(a). That explains Congress's addition of procedural safeguards for (b)(3) class members beyond those provided for (b)(1) or (b)(2) class members (e.g., an opportunity to opt out), and the court's duty to take a "'close look'" at whether common questions predominate over individual ones. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *13 (Mar. 27, 2013). 28
29 Evaluation of expert testimony part of predominance inquiry "t "at the class-certification stage (as at trial), any model supporting a plaintiff s damages case must be consistent with its liability case, particularly with respect to the alleged anticompetitive i i effect of the violation." i Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *15 (Mar. 27, 2013). 29
30 Evaluation of expert testimony part of predominance inquiry But such assurance is not provided d by a methodology that t identifies damages that are not the result of the wrong. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *19 (Mar. 27, 2013). 30
31 Evaluation of expert testimony part of predominance inquiry "The Court of Appeals simply concluded d that t respondents provided a method to measure and quantify damages on a classwide basis, finding it unnecessary to decide whether the methodology [was] a just and reasonable inference or speculative. Under that logic, at the class-certification stage any method of measurement is acceptable so long as it can be applied classwide, no matter how arbitrary the measurements may be. Such a proposition would reduce Rule 23(b)(3) s predominance requirement to a nullity." Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *16 (Mar. 27, 2013). 31
32 Class action story has to make sense Can t pull bait & switch on theories. Close enough is not good enough. The District i t Court and the Court of Appeals saw no need for respondents to "tie each theory of antitrust impact" to a calculation of damages.. That, they said, would involve consideration of the "merits" having "no place in the class certification inquiry. That reasoning flatly contradicts our cases requiring a determination that Rule 23 is satisfied, even when that requires inquiry into the merits of the claim. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *15-16 (Mar. 27, 2013). 32
33 Damages alone can predominate Without t presenting another methodology, respondents cannot show Rule 23(b)(3) predominance: Questions of individual damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *14 (Mar. 27, 2013). 33
34 Conclusion: The Predominance Dialogue Amgen and Comcast show the battle on the Court between liberals and conservatives on the ease of class certification played out visà-vis the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The debate started with Wal-Mart and continues to be played out in Amgen and Comcast. 34
35 Conclusion: The Predominance Dialogue Wal-Mart was a watershed decision in a number of ways, including the way in which the Court evaluated the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a). Justice Scalia held in Wal-Mart that t for commonality, there must be a class based on a common contention, and that common contention must drive the resolution of the class-wide issue that is central to the claims at stake. 35
36 Conclusion: The Predominance Dialogue In Amgen, as Justice Kagan put it at argument: for materiality, the class wins or loses together. If it s material, it s material as to everybody. If it s not material, it s not material as to everybody. And where that s the case, it seems to me that the Wal-Mart test, whichis, when whenyouruleonthe on issue, do you rule on each of the claims in one stroke? The answer to that is yes. This use of Wal-Mart is echoed in the Amgen decision itself. 36
37 Conclusion: The Predominance Dialogue In Comcast, Justice Scalia strikes back, again strengthening the predominance requirement:... it is clear that, under the proper p standard for evaluating certification, respondents model falls short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis.... respondents cannot show Rule 23(b)(3) predominance: Questions of individual dua damage age calculations cu a will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class. 37
38 Conclusion: The Predominance Dialogue In dissent, Justice Ginsburg attempts to confine Comcast to the antitrust context. The dissent reasons that individualized damages historically have not led to the defeat of class certification. 38
39 Conclusion: The Predominance Dialogue Where are we now on predominance? Commonality versus predominance? Are Amgen and/or Comcast confined to securities and antitrust areas, respectively? 39
40 Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Costa Mesa Denver Houston Los Angeles New York Orlando Washington, DC Baker & Hostetler LLP 40
41 The Role of the Merits Inquiry in Predominance
42 Behrend has already affected two cases RBS Citizens v. Ross (7th Cir.) Court granted cert, vacated, & remanded for decision in light of Comcast v. Behrend. (2013 U.S. LEXIS 2640 (Apr. 1, 2013)) Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer (6th Cir.) Court granted cert, vacated, & remanded for decision in light of Comcast v. Behrend. (2013 U.S. LEXIS 2695 (Apr. 1, 2013)) 42
43 RBS Citizens v. Ross Plaintiffs alleged they were denied overtime pay. 7th Cir. affirmed class certification; held that allegation of no-overtime policy would predominate over any individualized reasons to deny overtime. Cert petition sought review on: (1) Whether it is consistent with Dukes to hold a defendant to a Rule 23(b)(3) class action cannot raise individualized affirmative defenses if the class seeks only monetary relief; and (2) whether a court can conclude commonality is satisfied when a class claims denial of overtime pay, without resolving whether dissimilarities would preclude class from establishing class-wide liability. 43
44 Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer Plaintiffs alleged that Duet washing machines got moldy, ruining clothes & making homes smell. 6th Cir. affirmed class certification; held that district court did not have to investigate proximate cause of moldiness, and that unharmed class members might have overpayment theory. Cert petition i sought review on: (1) Whether a class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) even though most class members were not harmed and could not sue; (2) whether a class may be certified without resolving factual disputes that bear directly on the requirements of Rule 23; and (3) whether a class may be certified without determining whether factual dissimilarities among putative class members give rise to individualized issues that predominate over any common issues. 44
45 Court struggled with role of merits inquiry Amgen argument: If you have the same question, then maybe we shouldn't have this fraud-on-the-market theory. Because the whole purpose of it is to assume that the whole class was damaged because you can rely on an efficient market. But you can only rely on an efficient market where there has been a material misrepresentation. Justice Scalia (emphasis added; ellipses for readability) 45
46 Court struggled with role of merits inquiry Behrend argument: the judge doesn't really have a gatekeeper function here. There is no jury. And if the judge admits the evidence and if it turns out that that doesn't meet the standard of reliability, then he can exclude it. I don't see why the judge has to say: All right, now first I'm going to do Daubert, and next I'm going to do whether this is reliable. This is just a magic words approach, it seems to me. Justice Kennedy (emphasis added; ellipses for readability) 46
47 Likely areas of effect Mt Materiality ilit shifts inquiry i to other stages of litigation Experts more rigor from judges, regardless of label Damages more concern about individualized proof 47
48 Predominance standard More demanding di than commonality Common answers must outweigh individualized answers Have to go into merits to determine whether issues can be decided on classwide basis Shouldn t decide whether the claim is still valid 48
49 Materiality is no longer a certification issue Can still be decided: During a motion to dismiss (12(b)(6) standard, with some assistance from the PSLRA, which requires plaintiffs to plead specific facts supporting loss causation) During a motion for summary judgment ( no contested material facts ) During trial ( preponderance of the evidence ) Finding of no materiality = finding of no liability Contrast with, e.g., market efficiency. Can still have fraud in a non-efficient market, but can t presume reliance. 49
50 Experts at certification The debate Behrend was supposed to decide: Seventh Circuit: Daubert inquiry required at certification. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010) ( the district i t court must perform a full Daubert analysis before certifying the class if the situation warrants ). Fourth Circuit: No Daubert inquiry required. Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149, 156 (4th Cir. 2009) ( evidence need not be conclusive to be probative, and even evidence that is of relatively weak probative value may be useful in meeting the commonality requirement ). 50
51 Supreme Court has dropped strong hints [A]t the class-certification stage (as at trial), any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case, particularly with respect to the alleged anticompetitive i i effect of the violation. i And for purposes of Rule 23, courts must conduct a "'rigorous analysis'" to determine whether that is so. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, *15 (Mar. 27, 2013) (internal quotations omitted). 51
52 Supreme Court has dropped strong hints The District i t Court concluded d that t Daubert did not apply to expert testimony at the certification stage of class-action proceedings. We doubt that is so Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, (2011). 52
53 Role of damages at certification Plaintiffs have long argued that individualized damages should not matter to certification: Courts have routinely rejected this argument, concluding, as we have in previous cases, that the need for individualized proof of damages alone will not df defeat class certification. i Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs. Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 429 (4th Cir. 2003). A particularly significant aspect of the Rule 23(b)(3) approach is the recognition that individual damages questions do not preclude a Rule 23(b)(3) class action when the issue of liability is common to the class. 6 ALBA CONTE & HERBERT B. NEWBERG, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS 18:27 (4th ed. 2002). 53
54 The problem of zero damages. If no damages, plaintiffs have not proven an essential element of liability. So when variations in damages include no damages, really a question of liability. 54
55 Damages more rhetorical than analytical If justifying i certification: Variations are damages-related and so inconsequential [T]o the extent that TPCM's causation argument is that individual inquiry is necessary to establish whether the collapse of the Plan caused Plaintiffs any damages, this is precisely the same argument made by almost all defendants in mass tort cases: determining damages will require an individualized inquiry. Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs. Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 429 (4th Cir. 2003). 55
56 Damages more rhetorical than analytical If justifying no certification Variations are liability-oriented. [W]here the issue of damages and impact does not lend itself to such a mechanical calculation, but requires separate minitrials of an overwhelming large number of individual claims, courts have found that the staggering problems of logistics thus created make (the) damage aspect of the case predominate, and render the case unmanageable as a class action. Windham v. Am. Brands, Inc., 565 F.2d 59, 69 (4th Cir.1977). Quoted in Gunnells dissent. 56
57 Damages have long been part of certification debate In this case, proof of injury, or whether plaintiffs have been harmed, is bound up in proof of damages, or by how much plaintiffs have been harmed. McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215, 227 (2d Cir. 2008). In antitrust class actions, vague dividing line between liability and damages, meaning individualized id d damages questions can pose real problem. Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., 573 F.2d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 1978). 57
58 Other areas for debate Adequacy Standing can you decide standing? Unique defenses. Predominance Must each class member have a colorable legal claim? Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 297 (3d Cir. 2011). 58
Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims Evaluating Effectiveness of Strategy in Light of Differing Lower
More informationSummary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation Weighing the Risk of Showing Your Hand, Leveraging Discovery Tools and Timing,
More informationHow Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
More information"No Injury" and "Overbroad" Class Actions After Comcast, Glazer and Butler: Implications for Certification
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A "No Injury" and "Overbroad" Class Actions After Comcast, Glazer and Butler: Implications for Certification Navigating Complex Issues of Overbreadth
More informationArticle III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Article III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends Strategies for Plaintiff and Defense Counsel to Pursue or Challenge
More informationSECURITIES LITIGATION & REGULATION
Westlaw Journal SECURITIES LITIGATION & REGULATION Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 19, ISSUE 8 / AUGUST 20, 2013 Expert Analysis Recent Supreme Court Decisions
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 563 U. S. (2011) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationDefeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationStatistical Evidence in Wage and Hour Class Actions: Implications of Tyson Foods for Certification and Trial
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Statistical Evidence in Wage and Hour Class Actions: Implications of Tyson Foods for Certification and Trial Disputing or Leveraging Representative
More informationLeveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program
Presenting a live 60-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program Amending Identifications of Goods and Services in Trademark Registration TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,
More informationDrafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Satya Narayan, Attorney, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, Calif.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Nondisclosure Agreements for Information Technology Transactions Negotiating Key Provisions and Exclusions, Navigating Challenges for Information
More informationDeposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses Preparing the Deposition Notice, Questioning the Corporate Representative, Raising and Defending Objections,
More informationChallenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent
More informationEffective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Effective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
More informationHIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A HIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery Safeguarding PHI and Avoiding Violations When Responding to Subpoenas and Discovery Requests THURSDAY,
More informationEvidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Evidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings Navigating the Discovery Minefield and Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege WEDNESDAY,
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Signatures and Electronic Loan Documentation in Real Estate Finance: ESIGN and UETA, Interplay With UCC Enforceability, Authentication and Admissibility;
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Michael A. Brusca, Shareholder, Stark & Stark, Lawrenceville, N.J.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Personal Injury Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Preparing and Delivering, Handling Objections and Related Motions Developing and Presenting
More informationState Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual Filed Claims
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Hybrid FLSA Collective Actions and State Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual
More informationSupreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification
June 24, 2014 Supreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, the Supreme
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies Disposing of or Limiting Claims,
More informationThe Role of Experts in Class Certification in U.S. Antitrust Cases. Stacey Anne Mahoney Bingham McCutchen LLP
The Role of Experts in Class Certification in U.S. Antitrust Cases Stacey Anne Mahoney Bingham McCutchen LLP In the United States, whether you represent Plaintiffs or Defendants in antitrust class actions,
More information2010 Winston & Strawn LLP
Class Action Litigation: The Facts Really Do Matter Brought to you by Winston & Strawn LLP s Litigation Practice Group Today s elunch Presenters Stephen Smerek Litigation Los Angeles SSmerek@winston.com
More informationExtraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationComcast Corp. et al. v. Behrend et al. Docket No Argument Date: November 5, 2012 From: The Third Circuit
civil procedure Tightening the Noose on Class Certification Requirements (II): Is Admissible Evidence Required at Class Certification? CASE AT A GLANCE Philadelphia Comcast cable television subscribers
More informationLitigating Employment Discrimination
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Litigating Employment Discrimination Claims: Filing in State vs. Federal Court Evaluating Substantive and Procedural Advantages and Risks of Each
More informationEnvironmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Environmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws Addressing Pre- vs. Post-Petition
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In House Counsel Depositions: Navigating Complex Legal and Ethical Issues Responding to Deposition Notices and Subpoenas and Protecting Privileged
More informationThe Changing Landscape in U.S. Antitrust Class Actions
The Changing Landscape in U.S. Antitrust Class Actions By Dean Hansell 1 and William L. Monts III 2 In 1966, prompted by an amendment to the procedural rules applicable to cases in U.S. federal courts,
More informationT he fraud-on-the-market presumption remains
Securities Regulation & Law Report Reproduced with permission from Securities Regulation & Law Report, 46 SRLR 1403, 07/21/2014. Copyright 2014 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationInsurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Insurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations Perspectives From Policyholder and Insurer
More informationCommercial Litigation. More Relief for Business: U.S. Supreme Court Continues to Restrict Far-Reaching Claims. in the news. In this Issue: July 2013
in the news Commercial Litigation July 2013 More Relief for Business: U.S. Supreme Court Continues to Restrict Far-Reaching Claims In this Issue: Comcast Corp v. Behrand Take-Away from Comcast Corp v.
More informationNew ERISA Supreme Court Rulings in Conkright and Hardt Leveraging Court Guidance on Deferential Review Standards and Attorney Fee Awards
presents New ERISA Supreme Court Rulings in Conkright and Hardt Leveraging Court Guidance on Deferential Review Standards and Attorney Fee Awards A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: When Do U.S. Antitrust Laws Apply to Foreign Conduct? Navigating the Applicability of the FTAIA's "Effects
More informationThird-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Third-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions Defining Scope, Limitations and Key Terms; Minimizing Liability Risks for Opinion Giver THURSDAY,
More informationNew Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3178 IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
More informationStandards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Standards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation WEDNESDAY,
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Legal Opinions for Article 9 Security Interests: Navigating the Complexities and Avoiding Liability Scope and Limitations, Interests of
More informationPreparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
More informationBasic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact
JUNE 23, 2014 SECURITIES LITIGATION UPDATE Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317
More informationAmgen, Inc., et al. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Docket No Argument Date: November 5, 2012 From: The Ninth Circuit
Civil Procedure Tightening the Noose on Class Certification Requirements (I): Another Whack at the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption in Securities Fraud Class Actions CASE AT A GLANCE The Connecticut Retirement
More informationCLASS ACTIONS AFTER WAL-MART
A DV I S O RY June 2011 CLASS ACTIONS AFTER WAL-MART Contacts The Supreme Court s Wal-Mart decision has received an enormous amount of media attention. This Advisory accordingly does not belabor the basic
More informationRendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Rendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests Drafting Defensible Opinions and Minimizing
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Product Liability: Expert Witnesses in Complex and Class Action Litigation Leveraging Experts for Issues of Class Certification, Causation, Manifestation
More informationHalliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to Rebut Presumption
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Halliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to June 24, 2014 AUTHORS Todd G. Cosenza Robert A. Gomez In a highly-anticipated decision (Halliburton
More informationStrategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Strategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers Drafting Agreements That Minimize Risks
More informationStatistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Statistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods Disputing or Leveraging Statistical Evidence in Complex Wage and Hour Litigation
More informationNavigating Jurisdictional Determinations Under the Clean Water Act: Impact of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Jurisdictional Determinations Under the Clean Water Act: Impact of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
More informationProvisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Provisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System Assessing Whether to Use - and Strategies for Leveraging Provisional
More informationWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Reins In Expansive Class Actions
July 18, 2011 Practice Group: Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Reins In Expansive Class Actions The United States Supreme Court s decision
More informationSpoliation of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims: Mitigation and Prevention
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Spoliation of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims: Mitigation and Prevention Identifying and Responding to Potential Evidence Spoliation and Drafting
More informationClient Alert. Background
Number 1481 March 5, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department US Supreme Court Holds That Proof Of Materiality Is Not A Prerequisite To Certifying A Securities Fraud Class Action Under
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationPatent Licensing: Advanced Tactics
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics for Licensees Post-AIA Structuring Contractual Protections and Responding When Licensed Patents Are Challenged
More informationCase 6:13-cv RWS-KNM Document 152 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 4364
Case 6:13-cv-00736-RWS-KNM Document 152 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 4364 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALAN B. MARCUS, individually and on
More informationNot So Basic: Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-on-the Market Presumption of Reliance
Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Number 1617 November 27, 2013 Not So Basic: Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-on-the Market Presumption of Reliance Parties to pending securities fraud class actions
More informationSecurities Class Actions
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Materiality Need Not Be Proven at Class Certification Stage To Trigger the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance in Securities Fraud Actions SUMMARY In Amgen Inc. v.
More informationThe CPI Antitrust Journal August 2010 (1)
The CPI Antitrust Journal August 2010 (1) Dukes v Wal-Mart Stores: En Banc Ninth Circuit Lowers the Bar for Class Certification and Creates Circuit Splits in Approving Largest Class Action Ever Certified
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 13-317 In The Supreme Court of the United States HALLIBURTON CO. AND DAVID J. LESAR, Petitioners, V. ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. F/K/A ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE SUPPORTING FUND, Respondent. On Petition
More informationEmployment Discrimination Litigation
Federal Appellate Court Allows Sex Discrimination Class Action Encompassing Up To 1.5 Million Class Members SUMMARY On April 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which encompasses
More informationLaw Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for Responding to a Chinese Government Commercial Bribery Investigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Chinese Anti Corruption Law Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2011 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In Pari Delicto Doctrine in Bankruptcy and Other Asset Recovery Litigation Anticipating or Raising the Defense in Claims Against Directors and Officers,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 11-1085 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AMGEN INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationAppellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Appellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 1pm Eastern
More informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing
More informationE-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationPRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a 90 Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference/Webinar with Live, Interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible
More informationSolving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles Lessons From Recent Decisions for Timing in Superfund and Environmental Litigation
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-165 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RBS CITIZENS N.A. D/B/A CHARTER ONE, ET AL., v. Petitioners, SYNTHIA ROSS, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationWal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions
Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions Grace Speights Michael Burkhardt Paul Evans www.morganlewis.com Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, --- S. Ct. ---, 2011 WL 2437013 (June
More informationDefendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II
Defendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II June 7, 2016 Robert L. Hickok hickokr@pepperlaw.com Gay Parks Rainville rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com Reprinted with permission from the June 7,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationBreach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Breach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2017 1pm Eastern
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AMGEN INC., KEVIN W. SHARER, RICHARD D. NANULA, ROGER M. PERLMUTTER, GEORGE J. MORROW, Petitioners, v. CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT PLANS AND TRUST FUNDS, Respondent.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1146 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TYSON FOODS, INC., v. Petitioner, PEG BOUAPHAKEO, et al., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Respondents. On Petition
More informationCLASS ACTIONS AFTER COMCAST
CLASS ACTIONS AFTER COMCAST In Comcast, the Supreme Court held that the district court should have considered viability of the plaintiffs damages theory at the class-certification stage Proposed damages
More informationPatent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages
Presenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Email Q&A Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced
More informationStrategically Limiting Discovery in Class Litigation: Tactics for Defense Counsel
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Strategically Limiting Discovery in Class Litigation: Tactics for Defense Counsel Leveraging Motions to Stay, Bifurcation Motions and Cost-Shifting
More informationSummary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies Leveraging Summary Judgment Motions
More informationIn the Wake of Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Where Are the Districts Headed on Class Certification?
In the Wake of Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Where Are the Districts Headed on Class Certification? by Paul M. Smith Last Term s Wal-Mart decision of the Supreme Court had two basic holdings about why the
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationLeveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB Best Practices for Patentees and Third Parties in Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 12-1716 Gale Halvorson; Shelene Halvorson, Husband and Wife lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company; Owners
More informationWitness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Witness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23,
More informationCase 2:10-cv IPJ Document 263 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:10-cv-02847-IPJ Document 263 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 22 FILED 2014 Nov-19 PM 03:33 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO RWZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-10305-RWZ DAVID ROMULUS, CASSANDRA BEALE, NICHOLAS HARRIS, ASHLEY HILARIO, ROBERT BOURASSA, and ERICA MELLO, on behalf of themselves
More information134 S.Ct Supreme Court of the United States
134 S.Ct. 2398 Supreme Court of the United States HALLIBURTON CO., et al., Petitioners v. ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., fka Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. Opinion Decided June 23, 2014. Chief
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the thne the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationHow the Supreme Court s Upcoming Halliburton Decision on the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption May Impact Securities Litigation
How the Supreme Court s Upcoming Halliburton Decision on the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption May Impact Securities Litigation In June, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether the fraud-on-the-market
More informationDiscovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery
More informationWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes June 22, 2011 In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277 (June 20, 2011), the Supreme Court vacated the certification of the largest class action in history and issued
More informationCase 3:16-cv JST Document 65 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jst Document Filed /0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD TERRY, Plaintiff, v. HOOVESTOL, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jst ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
More informationUCC Articles 8 and 9 and the Hague Securities Convention: Investment Property Update
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A UCC Articles 8 and 9 and the Hague Securities Convention: Investment Property Update Resolving Current Risks Facing Securities Customers, Banks,
More informationLay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Lay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques Leveraging Restatement, Summarization, Boxing-In
More informationEmployment Arbitration i Agreements Crafting Enforceable Arbitration Clauses and Successfully Navigating the ADR Process
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Employment Arbitration i Agreements Crafting Enforceable Arbitration Clauses and Successfully Navigating the ADR Process WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KOHL S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and
More information