Tag: Antitrust

  • Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards: Avoiding Increased Antitrust Scrutiny

    Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards: Avoiding Increased Antitrust Scrutiny

    The Authors

    Katie Reilly

    Katie ReillyWheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP

    Katie has favorably represented antitrust clients in matters involving monopolization, conspiracy, price fixing, exclusive dealing, and other competition-related disputes, including trade secrets and non-compete actions. She has extensive knowledge of the regulatory hurdles and obligations her clients face. Katie earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law, cum laude.

    Natalie West

    Natalie WestWheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP

    Natalie West represents sophisticated clients in complex commercial disputes. She regularly serves as the lead brief writer in antitrust cases, employment and consumer class actions, and appellate matters. Natalie graduated with high honors from the University of Texas School of Law, where she served as a member of the Texas Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Avoiding Antitrust Scrutiny

    Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards

    The increase in aggressive antitrust enforcement has certainly received significant attention. For the moment, juries are not rewarding the prosecutors. That said, even an unsuccessful government investigation is itself costly and can motivate plaintiffs’ lawyers. Best practices involve not only following the law but also maintaining solid optics to avoid the need for an expensive, if ultimately successful, defense.

    Abstract: 

    A decade ago, few lawyers across the country spent significant time thinking about antitrust law. But, since then, there has been an onslaught of antitrust attacks on businesses and executives across all sectors of the economy. Enforcement efforts have skyrocketed following President Biden’s July 2021 executive order directing a “whole of government” crackdown on competition abuses—and the trend shows no sign of letting up.

    Today, no matter the industry or the size of the business, everyone needs to understand these risks and have strategies to minimize them.

    This article will walk through the top antitrust risks of the moment and conclude with strategies on how to avoid not only violations but also bad optics that increase exposure.

    Download the article now!

  • The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

    The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

    The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser with Austin Cohen

    You might think that if you purchase a product for a price inflated by bad actors in the supply chain that you would be able to collect damages. Unfortunately, depending on who you are, you would be wrong.

    Consumers and businesses, indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that, surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing.

    But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives?  Are there any pro-purchaser changes on the horizon that could impact antitrust litigation brought by indirect buyers?

    For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with attorney Austin Cohen of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP of Philadelphia. His practice focuses on  antitrust and business law, class actions, torts and products liability, and environmental damage litigation. Austin received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania and his JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

    *******

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Austin B. Cohen

    Austin B. CohenLevin Sedran & Berman LLP

    Mr. Cohen, a native of West Islip, New York, received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990. He received a JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1996. During law school, he interned for the Honorable Lowell Reed (E.D. Pa.) June – August, 1995. He also served as an Executive Editor and Associate Editor for the University of Pittsburgh Journal of Law and Commerce and was a finalist in the Murray S. Love Trial Moot Court Competition.

    His practice focuses on antitrust and business law, class actions, torts and products liability, and environmental damage litigation. Austin received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania and his JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

  • Litigation Funding Battle Over Litigation Control

    Litigation Funding Battle Over Litigation Control

    Sysco and Burford Capital Butting Heads Over Litigation Control.

    • Food giant claims funder is interfering with antitrust litigation.
    • Funder says its client is settling for too little. 
    • Public dustups over litigation funding are rare.

    bison fighting

    Photo by Richard Lee on Unsplash

    Leading litigation funder Burford Capital LLC and food distribution giant Sysco Corp. are locking horns over the control and use of litigation funds. Burford says Sysco is settling Burford-funded antitrust litigation for amounts that deny the financial company optimal return on its investment. Sysco says the funder has overstepped its bounds and interfered with Sysco’s litigation oversight.

    Sysco received $140 million from Burford in part to fund price-fixing lawsuits against poultry, pork and beef producers – complex multidistrict litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs, dozens of defendants, and related criminal suits brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, settlements of private antitrust litigation have reached into the hundreds of millions, and DOJ has levied more than $100 million in fines.

    Burford, which gets a share of any settlements in the antitrust litigation, says Sysco is settling for too little.

    Sysco has sued companies associated with Burford – Glaz LLC, Posen Investments LP, and Kenosha Investments LP – claiming they are meddling in Sysco’s settlement efforts. Glaz, Posen, and Kenosha are all companies which have Burford Capital Limited as the only direct or indirect partner. All three are controlled by Burford and Burford operates as the sole funder of their respective litigation efforts.

    Sysco also criticized its attorneys at Boies Schiller Flexner, whom, they say, allegedly spoke with Burford representatives without Sysco’s knowledge.

    Sysco says the firm gave into Burford’s demands, an accusation the firm vehemently denies. Meanwhile, Burford has obtained an arbitration ruling blocking Sysco from finalizing any of the price-fixing settlements against the meat producers. Sysco has moved to overturn that order, saying it “violates several of the most fundamental public policies underlying our judicial system, including party control over litigation.” Burford claims Sysco gave it veto power over settlements, but only after the food distributor violated the terms of the investment deal.

    This high-stakes kerfuffle raises issues around the role litigation funders play in the cases they fund – a subject critics have hammered on since the inception of the industry. While ethics rules forbid interference by lenders, Sysco and Burford clearly disagree on whether the funder veered out of its lane. Whatever the result, it’s unusual to see disputes between funders, litigants, and counsel fought in broad daylight like this.

    According to Custom Market Insights, the global litigation funding market was $12.2 billion in 2021 and is expected to reach $25.8 billion by 2030. In addition to London-based Burford, it lists key market players as Parabellum Capital, Bentham Capital, Juridica Investments, Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd., and others.

    Legal News

    Email the Editor

    How AI Is Transforming the Practice of Law with Cristin Traylor

    Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing legal practice, but where does it deliver real value—and where is human judgment still essential? Cristin Traylor of Relativity joins Tom Hagy to discuss generative AI in legal workflows, discovery, defensibility, validation, and what lawyers should consider before relying on AI-generated results.

    The Texas Two-Step: Testing Bankruptcy Law and Jury Rights with Adam Silverstein

    Can financially healthy companies use bankruptcy to resolve billions of dollars in mass tort claims? Plaintiff lawyer Adam Silverstein of Otterbourg examines the Texas two-step, Johnson & Johnson’s unsuccessful talc bankruptcy attempts, the impact of the Supreme Court’s Purdue decision, and the tension between Chapter 11 and plaintiffs’ jury trial rights.

    The Hidden Danger of Carbon Monoxide: Proving Exposure, Brain Injury & Liability with Sam Cannon

    Carbon monoxide poisoning can cause devastating injuries while leaving victims and attorneys with difficult questions about exposure, causation, and liability. Attorney Sam Cannon of Cannon Law discusses how carbon monoxide cases are investigated, how brain injuries are proven, and why deferred maintenance, expert testimony, and multiple responsible parties can become critical to the litigation.

    War Risk Insurance and Exclusion | Webinar for CLE Credit

    War risk exclusions can determine whether a multimillion-dollar loss is covered or excluded. This CLE webinar examines the legal principles governing war risk insurance, political risk coverage, terrorism exclusions, cyber war claims, and the landmark cases that continue to shape insurance recovery. Featuring Robert M. Horkovich of Anderson Kill and Rich Boone of Wilson Elser, the program provides practical guidance for evaluating policy language, analyzing exclusion defenses, and developing effective recovery strategies in an evolving geopolitical and cyber risk environment.

    AI and the Law: A Year-End Retrospective 2025 and Beyond | Webinar for CLE Credit

    Artificial intelligence continues to reshape the legal landscape, bringing new litigation risks, evolving regulatory obligations, and complex governance challenges. In this CLE webinar, Abigail Damsky, Jamie O’Neill, and Seán McCabe of Anderson Kill examine the legal developments that continue to influence AI-related litigation and compliance, including privacy and biometric claims, copyright disputes, AI washing, algorithmic discrimination, product liability, antitrust concerns, and the expanding global regulatory framework. Gain practical insights into the cases, trends, and governance considerations that remain highly relevant for legal professionals advising clients on AI risk.

  • Supplier Beware: The DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chains

    Supplier Beware: The DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chains

    The Author

    Jennifer Driscoll

    Jennifer DriscollRobinson + Cole

    Jennifer M. Driscoll (jdriscoll@rc.com) is counsel with Robinson+Cole in New York where she focuses on investigations, litigation, arbitration, mergers, and counseling. She has extensive experience in the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and automotive industries.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Supplier Beware:
    DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chain Issues

    “Although competitors may attend trade association meetings, the company representative in attendance should be well versed on the line between lawful discussions and ruses to disguise unlawful collusion in violation of the Sherman Act.”

    Abstract: Challenged by the pandemic, the global supply chain has generated a heightened amount of scrutiny for its impact on the economy, the labor market, the delivery of goods and services, and national security. Attention from the Biden administration portends an era when the federal government will shine a spotlight on the supply chain to root out misconduct. In this article, the author reviews recent supply chain disruptions and reactions from the DOJ and FTC, as well as the government’s efforts to support competition in the labor markets by eliminating noncompete agreements in employment contracts. Finally, she discusses proactive steps companies can take to mitigate the risk that they will find themselves the subject of a government investigation.

    Download the article now!

  • Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

    Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

    The Author

    Jonathan Rubin

    Jonathan RubinMoginRubin LLP

    Jonathan Rubin (jrubin@moginrubin.com) is Co-Founder and Partner of MoginRubin LLP, a boutique antitrust, mergers and acquisitions, and class action law firm. Since 2001, he has focused his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country.

    Rubin is a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging
    Issues in Litigation.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Policy Derailed:
    Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track?

    “The failure to appropriately adjust the patent system to accommodate the competitive circumstances created when patents are incorporated into standards undermines the purposes of the standard-setting enterprise and impairs the utility and proliferation of standardized technologies. Without a course correction among the judiciary, the United States risks finding itself as a less desirable jurisdiction for pro-growth and pro-competitive patenting and standard-setting activities.”

    Abstract: A consensus at the intersection of patent and anti-trust law was achieved after a series of decisions finding that in some circumstances owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) have an antitrust duty to deal with willing licensees. Beginning in 2017, however, the Department of Justice derailed U.S. policy by undermining the role and usefulness of antitrust for policing abuses of the standard setting process. This article traces the emergence of the consensus, its abrogation by the DOJ, and the resulting effects and prospects for the future.

    Download the article now!

    Explore more from MoginRubin LLP!

    Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List

    OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant

    Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP

    Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification.

    Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

    Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger.

    Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act

    Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin

    Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog.

  • Epiq Class Action Settlement Efficiency

    Epiq Class Action Settlement Efficiency

    EpiqEpiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar
    Wait Wait … Don’t Settle!
    Essential elements of effective class action settlements.

    When it comes to complex class action litigation, once the hard work is done – litigation and settlement – more hard work begins – administering it.  But is the deal really ready?

    After years of arduous proceedings, discovery, motions, appeals, hearings, negotiations, and more, the scope and structure of your settlement has been drafted. Everyone is in agreement. The hard work of the courts, the attorneys, the legal teams, and the litigants is complete. Now it’s time to administer the settlement. Send out notices. Cut the checks. Get people paid. Boom! Sit back and relax. Get a claims administrator to take it from there.
    But wait … you find out that the terms of the agreement, the promises made, the budget established, and the deadlines calendared are not only inefficient, they are completely unworkable. Now the settlement is in jeopardy. The clients are frustrated. The court is frustrated. And you have a headache.
    That is a situation you, as a class action attorney, never want to find yourself in. The best way to avoid this quagmire is for attorneys to work with a professional and experienced claims administrator before you agree on settlement terms, someone who has been to this rodeo many, many times before. If you want smooth execution of your claims program, they must be on your team as you pull the pieces of the settlement together, not afterwards.
    Join us for a complimentary CLE webinar on Thursday, April 8, 2021, for a practical discussion based on Seven Elements of Effectively Settling Class Actions led by a class action litigator turned class action settlement expert, who will moderate a discussion with two highly regarded class action attorneys who have been involved in a number of high-profile complex cases.

    On Demand | Recorded April 2021

    On Demand Registration

    Included with registration

    • 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). CLE codes are embedded in the video.
    • For questions write to CLE@LitigationConferences.com.
    • 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals.
    • The complete PowerPoint presentation.
    • Continued access to the complete recording for later use.
    • Answers to your questions via email to the presenters, or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers.

    KEY POINTS

    These Seven Elements of Effectively Settling Class Actions will serve as the framework for our practical presentation.
    • Consult Early, Before Settlement
    • Evaluate Noticing Options
    • More Outreach = More Claims
    • Understand Your Data
    • Use The Right Technology
    • Consider Appropriate Scope of Services
    • Compare Apples to Apples on Estimates

    On Demand Registration

    Meet the Panel

    Michael O’Connor
    Vice President
    Class Action & Mass Tort Solutions
    Epiq

    Over the past 10 years Michael O’Connor has established himself as a national expert on complex settlement administration matters and oversees client relationship development and strategic client communications. He works closely with our class action and mass tort team of project managers to ensure consistent, superior client service standards.

    Based in Washington, DC, Mr. O’Connor also works extensively on Epiq’s contracts with the United States Federal Government, including the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Currently, Mr. O’Connor also oversees Epiq’s administration of: (a) Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 10-CIV-4518 (S.D.N.Y., Hon. L. Preska), a $1.9 billion disbursement to victims of the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut; and (b) In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-MD-1720 (MKB) (JO) (E.D.N.Y.), a nearly $6 billion settlement brought by all U.S. merchants against Visa and Mastercard.

    A highly esteemed thought leader, O’Connor is a frequent national speaker on settlement administration best practices and has worked on and overseen many of Epiq’s largest and most complex engagements. He holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Oregon Law School and a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Yale University.  Before joining Epiq in 2010, Mr. O’Connor was a trial lawyer for thirteen years, most recently as an owner at Garvey Schubert Barer (now Foster Garvey).

    More about Michael

    Alexandra “Xan” Bernay
    Partner
    Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

    Alexandra Bernay is a partner in Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP’s San Diego office, where she specializes in antitrust and unfair competition class-action litigation. She has also worked on some of the Firm’s largest securities fraud class actions, including the Enron litigation, which recovered an unprecedented $7.2 billion for investors.

    Xan currently serves as co-lead counsel in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, in which a settlement of $5.5 billion was approved in the Eastern District of New York. This case was brought on behalf of millions of U.S. merchants against Visa and MasterCard and various card-issuing banks, challenging the way these companies set and collect tens of billions of dollars annually in merchant fees. The settlement is believed to be the largest antitrust class action settlement of all time. Additionally, Xan is involved in In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania – a large case involving anticompetitive conduct in the biosimilars market, where the Firm is sole lead counsel for the end-payor plaintiffs. She is also part of the litigation team in In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.), which involves anticompetitive conduct related to dealer management systems on behalf of auto dealerships across the country. Another representative case is Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP West Coast Prods. LLC (S.D. Cal.), a massive case against the largest gas refiners in the world brought by gasoline station owners who allege they were overcharged for gasoline in California as a result of anticompetitive conduct. Xan has also had experience in large consumer class actions, including In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, which case was brought on behalf of bank customers who were overcharged for debit card transactions and resulted in more than $500 million in settlements with major banks that manipulated customers’ debit transactions to maximize overdraft fees. She also helped try to verdict a case against one of the world’s largest companies who was sued on behalf of consumers. Xan speaks on a variety of issues related to litigation, including recent changes to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In December 2018, with another lawyer, she prevailed for her client in a multi-day probate court trial as part of her pro bono work with the San Diego Volunteer Lawyers’ Program. Xan has been named a Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyer by Lawdragon. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from Humboldt State University, where she received the Society of Professional Journalists Outstanding Graduate Award. She then graduated magna cum laude with a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Diego School of Law, where she was Comments Editor for the San Diego Law Review, and an Order of the Coif member.

    More about Xan

    On Demand Registration

    Keith Dubanevich
    Attorney
    Stoll Berne

    Keith is an accomplished trial, appellate, and healthcare lawyer with over 35 years of experience in more than a dozen different jurisdictions around the country. With a focus on complex dispute resolution, with particular emphasis in the healthcare industry, Keith is adept at handling multi-state and international antitrust cases, consumer litigation, and securities disputes. In healthcare, he has handled peer review disputes, partnership and incorporation matters, and billing investigations.

    Keith’s clients value his keen instincts in court and his ability to delve into complex legal issues while never losing sight of the overall strategy of a case. A judge commented that during a recent trial Keith was “remarkably thorough, … prepared, respectful, and efficient.” Keith has also received high praise from his peers including this comment about a recent arbitration proceeding: “I was so impressed with your professionalism and effectiveness. Your whole presentation was a model of what an advocate should be.”

    During his time at the Oregon Department of Justice as Associate Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Keith led the creation of a civil rights unit, managed securities litigation including multiple cases against financial services companies, and supervised antitrust investigations and prosecutions. He was also involved with the adoption of legislation that expanded the Unlawful Trade Practices Act to include financial services companies.

    More about Keith

  • Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin LLP

    Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin LLP

    Featured Speaker

    Jonathan Rubin

    Jonathan RubinPartner

    Jonathan focuses his practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator, he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. As a thought-leader in competition law, he has published in influential academic journals and has spoken to numerous professional groups, including the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, the University of Wisconsin, and the American Antitrust Institute. Jonathan has also made several appearances before congressional committees.

    More About Rubin

    For more information please email Tom Hagy

    Explore more from MoginRubin LLP!

    Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List

    OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant

    Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP

    Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification.

    Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin

    Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger.

    Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act

    Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin

    Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog.

    Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee

    Expert Testimony, Uninjured Class Members, and Article III Standing 

    This CLE course will discuss the ramifications arising from the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), addressing numerous important class certification issues. The program will address Olean’s critical holdings regarding the evidentiary burden under Rule 23, how expert testimony should be assessed at the class certification stage, and the relevance of injury and Article III standing to assessing Rule 23’s predominance requirement and the scope of a proposed class definition. The panel will discuss the impact Olean will have for both plaintiffs and defendants, and will assess how lower courts have reacted to this important Ninth Circuit ruling.

    Description

    Olean addresses numerous key class certification issues and outlines a refined framework for class certification that may extend beyond the Ninth Circuit. The decision clarifies the burden of proof under Rule 23 and a district court’s obligation to assess both the admissibility of expert evidence and its adequacy to satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23. Counsel will need to understand Olean’s holding regarding uninjured class members. While the Ninth Circuit rejected a categorical rule that a class cannot be certified if it includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured members, it emphasized that injury, both as an element of the underlying claim and as a requirement of Article III, is an essential issue in determining whether Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement is satisfied.

    Listen as this panel of preeminent class action lawyers discusses how Olean will affect certification and offers new strategies to consider. Get the history of the case, its key holdings and strategies for applying them, and recent decisions applying it.

    The panel will discuss these and other critical issues:

    • How will the issue of uninjured class members impact class certification after Olean?
    • How will Olean change the use of expert testimony at the class certification stage?
    • How will Olean’s guidance impact consumer and employment class actions?

    The speakers:

    Jonathan Rubin, Partner, MoginRubin LLP

    James F. Bogan, III, Partner, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

    Jonathan F. Cohn, Partner, Sidley Austin

    Bradley J. Hamburger, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

  • Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller

    Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller

    Our Guests

    Travis Miller

    Travis Miller Assent Compliance Inc.

    Travis is an international trade and compliance attorney who specializes in ITAR/EAR/sanctions, global anti-corruption and anti-slavery, codes of conduct, environmental health and safety, product stewardship, and corporate social responsibility.

    Travis manages Assent’s worldwide legal activities, advises the Board of Directors on legal matters, and oversees corporate compliance, governance initiatives, and other commercial transactions. Before coming to Assent, he served in various high-level counsel positions with companies such as Microchip Technology, Foresite Group, and St. Jude Medical.

    Dan Mogin

    Dan MoginMogin Rubin LLP

    Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. A true thought leader in the field, Dan has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law, and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise.

    Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller

    Pressure builds when budgets are cut and fewer resources are available to maintain the necessary vigilance to remain compliant with often complex and changing regulations.

    Corporate risk can be caused by laxity, inattention, misconduct, unethical behavior, or even illegal activities by people and organizations in your supply chain. Often these things are what happen when people are under pressure. They may feel pressure to bend rules to hit sales targets, or they feel significant competitive pressure.

    Listen to my interview in two acts with Travis Miller, General Counsel at Assent Compliance Inc. and Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. In Act 1 we discuss the conduct of a fictitious airline that is marketing itself as a green company and its competitors are crying foul, and by that I mean suing them. In Act 2 a fictitious semiconductor manufacturer that is allegedly using its considerable market power to trounce competitors. The fictitious scenarios involving these fictitious companies are as follows:

    Act 1: Greenwashing by AirGreen Corp.

    Commercial jets disproportionately spew high amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. There is no practical way to significantly reduce these harmful pollutants. Corporations are under pressure to be environmentally responsible, and demonstrate they are genuinely embracing the ESG movement. When it comes to carbon neutrality, the FTC says companies should not make “broad, unqualified” claims that they are running green businesses without “reliable scientific evidence” that their carbon offsets will have a timely impact. AirGreen, a major yet fictitious air shipping company, launched a global ad campaign called Super Green Air, dubbing itself the first commercial airline to be carbon neutral. AirGreen hasn’t actually reduced harmful emissions from its flights. Instead, it has purchased carbon offsets, which means it paid to reduce the emissions from other sources, while not actually reducing its carbon footprint. AirGreen’s competitors have filed suits and complaints with the FTC that this is false advertising that gives AirGreen a competitive edge in the air shipping market. 

    Act 2: MegaTech Monopolizing Semiconductor Chips (starts at minute 47:47)

    The global semiconductor industry makes products that run the world. They’re in PCs, large mainframes, smartphones, cable and internet equipment, electric cars, and wind turbines. The demand for silicon chips is enormous. These chips are manufactured by a dirty, environmentally unfriendly process. Their manufacture also relies on a “complex, dynamic and multidirectional global supply and services matrix” (aka supply chain). Recent clogs in that supply chain caused by the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrate that. When people think of monopolies, they think of big conglomerates that control huge markets, like AT&T and Microsoft. AT&T ruled over telephone communications without competition for years. They were “the phone company.” If you wanted assistance their number was “0.” In the case of Microsoft, it controlled more than 95% of the PC operating system market. But monopolies can also mean dominance of one specific piece of one specific product maybe even in a specific region. You could have a monopoly if you made all cell phones, or you could hold a monopoly if you make a component that makes all cellphones work. MegaTech is one such company, albeit a fictitious one. It makes the chip that makes your cable box work. In fact, they are the only maker of these chips. MegaTech has already been investigated and sued by the FTC. It has already agreed to stop anticompetitive conduct such as exclusivity arrangements with its customers. And, it has already broken that promise and is being investigated again. Some of its suppliers are considering major litigation, too.

    We discuss these scenarios from the perspectives of in-house compliance and legal professionals, outside counsel specializing in competition law, and a journalist covering the legal industry.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

    p.s. I add brief insights, humbly, on behalf of the Fourth Estate. In so doing, I also demonstrate why — if you’re no good at multitasking —  don’t. Especially around smart people who are really paying attention.  Also, if at some point you think you hear birds chirping, it might be time to see someone. Special thanks to our sound engineer, Jordan Forbes.

  • Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

    Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

    Our Guest

    Eric L. Cramer

    Eric L. CramerBerger | Montague

    Eric Cramer is Chairman of the Firm and Co-Chair of the Firm’s antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in the area of antitrust class actions. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for his clients totaling well over $3 billion.

    Mr. Cramer is also a frequent speaker at antitrust and litigation related conferences and a leader of multiple non-profit advocacy groups. He was the only Plaintiffs’ lawyer selected to serve on the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section Transition Report Task Force delivered to the incoming Obama Administration in 2012.

    Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

    Among the legal and regulatory avenues one might follow to mitigate the impact of racism, most of us would look to various manifestations of discrimination law in  employment, lending, real estate, education, healthcare, voting rights, and other categories. When presented in those contexts, the anti-racism objectives are clear. 

    There are several federal laws and many state laws that prohibit anticompetitive behavior.  At the top of the heap is the Sherman Antirust Act of 1890, which outlaws illegal monopolies and anticompetitive tactics, conspiracies to restrain trade, cartels and syndicates.  But what do wages, including those paid to minorities, have to do with antitrust? What about no-poach agreements, whereby groups of companies agree not to hire employees away from each other?  The answer is “quite a lot.”

    Listen to my interview with Eric Cramer, Chairman of Berger Montague and co-chair of the firm’s antitrust department, a team that handles antitrust class actions across the country involving a variety of industries.  Eric and the firm are responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for clients — a total value that now exceeds $3 billion. His recent focus has been representing workers who allege their employers’ anticompetitive practices  suppressed their pay. Recipient of numerous accolades and awards that include terms like titan, elite, thought leader, visionary, and lawyer of the year, Eric is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University where he earned membership in Phi Beta Kappa, and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Listen to what he had to say about this important subject.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

  • Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver

    Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver

    Ausra O. Deluard

    Ausra O. DeluardCounsel | Dentons LLP

    Jennifer M. Oliver

    Jennifer M. OliverPartner | MoginRubin LLP

    Attorneys Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver on Cannabis Industry Competition Law

    What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market?

    It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It’s based on their article — Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021.

    Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S.

    Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues.  Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog.

    The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Ausra and Jennifer are, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com.

    We hope you enjoy the interview.

    Tom Hagy
    Founder & Managing Director
    HB Litigation Conferences