Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question
Judge Would Likely Not Have Agreed to a Stay Had He Known About the Contingency
On August 27, plaintiffs’ counsel in the multi-district litigation involving Monsanto and its widely used weed killer Roundup, advised the court that parent company Bayer AG appeared to be going back on the settlement agreement announced in June. At that time, the company had agreed to settle about 75% of the 125,000 claims filed by plaintiffs alleging that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was linked to Roundup use; the settlement was for an estimated $10 billion.
At the hearing, Judge Vince Chhabria advised that he had received confidential letters from a number of plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending in the MDL who were concerned that Bayer AG was going back on the settlement, noting that the company had terminated settlement term sheets and refused to execute master service agreements that would finalize their settlements; Bayer conceded that there were currently no final agreements.
Bayer did advise Judge Chhabria that about 667 of the cases currently pending in the MDL had been resolved, a figure that the judge noted was only a fraction of the 4,000 currently filed. The judge also pointed to Bayer’s June 24 announcement of the settlement, stating that he had taken “all of that to mean the MDL is settled.” He indicated that he would likely not have agreed to a 60-day stay of the litigation had he known that the larger settlement was contingent on his approval of a separate class action settlement for $1.25 billion, designed to resolve any future Roundup cases. The judge then advised the parties that although he would not lift the current stay, he would not extend it, expressing concerns that it was being used by the parties to manipulate the settlement talks.
Litigator’s Duty of Reasonable Inquiry in Rule 26(g)(3): Guiding a Client Through Discovery
Litigator's Duty of Reasonable Inquiry in Rule 26(g)(3): Guiding a Client Through Discovery Bad things can and often do happen when lawyers over delegate e-discovery responsibility to their clients or vendors. Courts continue to express concern and exasperation over the conduct of counsel and parties in discovery and their failure to meet their affirmative obligations to make reasonable efforts to find discoverable material and that discovery responses were complete and correct when made. It can be difficult for counsel to draw bright-line distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conduct in preserving information and in conducting discovery, but counsel is not without guidance. This panel will provide concrete examples of the oft-given advice that counsel should be "actively involved" in discovery and then follow up and validate processes. The program will discuss the role and content of checklists and how to establish that counsel took those affirmative steps. The panel will also discuss key case law in this area. Listen as this panel of experienced e-discovery attorneys and litigators demonstrates what counsel must do to meet the duty of reasonable inquiry. Ralph Losey Attorney Partner Losey John J. Rosenthal Partner Winston & Strawn Jennifer Sutherland Attorney Gilman & Bedigian Ariana J. Tadler Founder and Managing Partner Tadler Law atadler@tadlerlaw.com A LIVE CLE Webinar! Monday, April 3, 2023 1:00pm Eastern 90 minutes Why do lawyers and parties continue to struggle with managing discovery? What is "knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry"? What have courts identified as less than reasonable inquiry into a client's discovery undertakings and what are the possible consequences, including sanctions? How can counsel overcome client objections to their involvement in discovery? Counsel's duty to supervise client discovery Strategies for staying actively involved in discovery Strategies for validating client's searches and productions Strategies for when client performance falls short
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery challenges counsel face when litigating wage and hour collective and class actions--from initiation through resolution of the case? What strategies have been effective in wage and hour collective and class actions for obtaining essential information with the least expense? What is the scope of discoverable evidence before and after certification of the putative class, and how can you limit or best manage discovery? When drafting discovery requests in wage and hour class and collective actions, what should employment counsel consider to ensure that the requests align with the proportionality standard? Interested in More CLE OnDemand? Click Here. Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note. Interested in this program? Click here to send [...]
PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation
HB Litigation Conferences presents a CLE-eligible webinar PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation and Regulation On August 26, 2022, yet another PFAS consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against a product manufacturer in which it is alleged that since the products contained PFAS and the company marketed the products as environmentally friendly and safe for use by consumers, a proposed class of consumers was deceived into buying the allegedly unsafe products. The lawsuit is not an isolated incident, as there have been over 20 such lawsuits, almost all of them filed in 2022. With the ever-increasing media, political and scientific attention being given to PFAS, the panelists predict that these lawsuits will continue to increase at an exponentially increasing rate moving forward against companies of all sizes that manufacture and supply products. Bringing together almost 20 years of product litigation experience and decades of scientific expertise in the field of chemicals such as PFAS, the panelists will discuss the legal issues that companies are facing from current or legacy uses of PFAS (whether intentional or not) and practical solutions that can be taken pre-lawsuit to understand and minimize risk. Questions answered: What do state and federal regulations say about PFAS in drinking water? If your company doesn’t use the two original types of PFAS, are you at less risk of litigation? Which industries currently face the most risk of PFAS-related consumer fraud cases? Are plaintiffs securing significant verdicts in personal injury litigation? And more! Plus, email your questions to the presenters. On Demand CLE Webinar What you get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credit*. CLE assistance. *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Download a free article! Meet the Speakers John Gardella Shareholder | CMBG3 John is a recognized thought leader on PFAS issues and a seasoned trial attorney with over 75 verdicts. He the Chair of the [...]
U.S. Government Enforcement Actions: Regulatory remediation settlement trends and claims administration best practices
HB Litigation Conferences presents a complimentary CLE-eligible webinar on-demand Government Enforcement Actions Regulatory Remediation Settlement Trends and Administration Best Practices Government enforcement actions are increasing. It’s important for attorneys to understand regulatory trends and best practices for remediation and administration, and how these actions differ from traditional class action settlements. Here are some of the questions our speakers will address in this CLE-eligible webinar: Why are government enforcement actions increasing? What are the common types of government consumer enforcement actions and how do they proceed? How do government enforcement actions differ from class actions? What are the key considerations in settlement negotiations in government enforcement actions? What are the components of settlement agreements in a government enforcement action? What notice efforts are required to help satisfy expected participation rates? Plus, answers to your questions via live chat. Webinar On Demand Recorded January 2023 What you get: PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers directly. 1 CLE credit*. CLE assistance. *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Meet the Speakers Mark Rapazzini Senior Director | Kroll Mark has more than 25 years of legal experience in cases ranging from individual personal injury litigation to class actions and complex mass torts. Prior to Kroll, Mark was an attorney at Alexander, Rapazzini & Graham, a partner at Duane Morris LLP, and as a founding partner at Rapazzini & Graham, LLP. While practicing law, Mark and his law partner founded RG2 Claims Administration, LLC, where he served as Chief Operating Officer responsible for business development and strategic direction. In 2008, Mark and his RG2 co-founder joined a national claims administration company, where he was a Senior Vice President in client services and consulting. Mark has more than 20 years of experience managing and supervising complex claims administration and government enforcement matters. He has served as a Court-Appointed Mediator, Court-Appointed Arbitrator, Settlement Judge [...]
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict With the Predominance Requirement
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict with the 23(b)(3) Predominance Requirement Proposed class actions seeking monetary damages are often difficult to certify because common issues do not predominate over individualized issues as required by Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(c)(4) provides that "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."Although Rule 23(c)(4) has been part of the rule since the landmark 1966 amendments, it was often overlooked until the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Plaintiffs now routinely seek limited issue certification for purported common issues, such as liability, arguing that questions of injury, reliance, or causation should be left for individual cases. When approved, this approach increases defendants' exposure by permitting certification in some cases that would otherwise fail the Rule 23(b)(3) standards.The federal circuits are now in a three-way split on how issue certification should be treated under Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. While the Fifth Circuit has taken the textual view in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. that permits issue certification only if the class first qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth, Sixth, Second, and Seventh Circuits have adopted the opposite view that Rule 23(c)(4) certification does not require predominance. The Third Circuit has clarified and heightened the test in Russell v. Educ. Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates, 20-2128 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2021), but offers both sides plenty to consider. The remaining circuits are uncommitted, leaving the district courts to address the matter.Listen as our panel of experienced class action litigators analyzes the varying circuit court positions on Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes and the implications of practitioners' decisions when pursuing or opposing class certification. Outline The emergence of issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) What is an issue class? How are they being strategically used? Where are the grey areas? Key court decisions on issue class certification Textual and historical analysis of Rule 23(c)(4) Strategies for defending the trial of "issue" classes Journal (JEIL):  Artificial Intelligence Litigation Risks in the Employment Discrimination Context. By Gerald Maatman Jr., Alex Karasik, and George Schaller CLE [...]
Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation
An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation  America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.  Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?  Who is protected by state and federal laws?  How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us? What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms? What are the most popular scams?  What is diminished capacity? What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation? What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms? What are some best practices for law firms? How can firms best protect their senior clients?  On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and [...]