MENU

Litigation

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Class Actions
  • Federal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Litigation
  • Torts & Product Liability
  • Trial & Appellate

2017 National Lawyers Convention

November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. More information will be posted later this summer.

Courthouse Steps: California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Mark Chenoweth June 27, 2017

On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, purchased millions of dollars of these securities. CalPERS sued Lehman Brothers in 2011, and their case was merged with another retirement fund’s putative class action suit against Lehman Brothers and transferred to a New York district court. Later that year, the other parties settled, but CalPERS decided to pursue its claims individually. The district court dismissed for untimely filing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals dismissal of the lawsuit. Mark Chenoweth of the Washington Legal Foundation will join us to discuss the decision and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Mark Chenoweth, General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

 

Microsoft v. Baker Decided - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Theodore H. Frank June 19, 2017

Microsoft v. Baker involved a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device, permanently damaging the Xbox. Since only .4% of Xbox consoles experienced this issue, the district court determined that "a class action suit could not be certified and individuals in the suit would have to come forward on their own." The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the court overturned the lower court's decision and held that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in removing the class action allegations.

On Monday, June 12 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the decision. Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute joined us to discuss the holding and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Microsoft v. Baker Decided

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Theodore H. Frank June 16, 2017

Microsoft v. Baker involved a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device, permanently damaging the Xbox. Since only .4% of Xbox consoles experienced this issue, the district court determined that "a class action suit could not be certified and individuals in the suit would have to come forward on their own." The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the court overturned the lower court's decision and held that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in removing the class action allegations.

On Monday, June 12 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the decision. Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the holding and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Competitive Enterprise Institute

A Modest Proposal for the Reduction of the Size of the Federal Judiciary by Two-Thirds

Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Brian M. Cogan June 05, 2017

This is the first article in a new Commentary section in the Federalist Society Review. In this section, we will feature interesting ideas and provocative proposals related to the legal profession. Here, a federal district judge tells us from his point of view of a few simple things Congress could do to dramatically reduce federal judges’ caseloads—largely by moving more state law-based cases into state court. [Read Now]

Update: In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Jay Lefkowitz, Douglas G. Smith May 25, 2017

In a recent decision, the Third Circuit held that hundreds of state-law claims alleging that bone fractures were caused by an osteoporosis medication were not preempted by federal law. While defendants argued, and the district court agreed, that the record showed that the FDA would not have approved stronger warnings in the product labeling, the Third Circuit concluded that the record raised factual issues that should go to a jury. In doing so, the court rejected defendants’ contention that preemption was a purely legal issue for the court to decide and suggested that the evidence must show that there was a “high probability” that the FDA would have rejected stronger labeling in order to invoke preemption. Was the appellate court correct? How does its decision fit with other recent preemption cases? Jay Lefkowitz and Doug Smith joined us to discuss these and other issues relating to the court’s decision.

Featuring:

  • Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Douglas G. Smith, P.C., Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Update: In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Jay Lefkowitz, Douglas G. Smith May 24, 2017

In a recent decision, the Third Circuit held that hundreds of state-law claims alleging that bone fractures were caused by an osteoporosis medication were not preempted by federal law. While defendants argued, and the district court agreed, that the record showed that the FDA would not have approved stronger warnings in the product labeling, the Third Circuit concluded that the record raised factual issues that should go to a jury. In doing so, the court rejected defendants’ contention that preemption was a purely legal issue for the court to decide and suggested that the evidence must show that there was a “high probability” that the FDA would have rejected stronger labeling in order to invoke preemption. Was the appellate court correct? How does its decision fit with other recent preemption cases? Jay Lefkowitz and Doug Smith will join us to discuss these and other issues relating to the court’s decision.

Featuring:

  • Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Douglas G. Smith, P.C., Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

 

Spokeo v. Robins: One Year Later - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Alan C. Raul May 18, 2017

When is an alleged injury “concrete and particularized” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution? Spokeo, a self-proclaimed “online people search” site, was sued by Thomas Robins for publishing false information about him, which he claimed damaged his employment prospects. After being dismissed by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit for failing to state an injury “in fact,” the case was appealed to the Supreme Court where, one year ago, a 6-2 decision saw the Court vacate and remand the case. Legal experts Jeffrey Jacobson and Alan Raul joined us as we discussed the lasting implications of this decision on its first anniversary.   

Featuring: 

  • Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • Alan Charles Raul, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

The Relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch
May 17, 2017

The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels on topics such as “The Unitary Executive,” “Chevron Deference,” and “Congressional Oversight of Voting Rights.”

The Conference will begin with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and end with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and a reception.

Spokeo v. Robins: One Year Later

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Alan C. Raul May 16, 2017

When is an alleged injury “concrete and particularized” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution? Spokeo, a self-proclaimed “online people search” site, was sued by Thomas Robins for publishing false information about him, which he claimed damaged his employment prospects. After being dismissed by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit for failing to state an injury “in fact,” the case was appealed to the Supreme Court where, one year ago, a 6-2 decision saw the Court vacate and remand the case. Join us as we discuss the lasting implications of this decision on its first anniversary with legal experts Jeffrey Jacobson and Alan Raul.   

Featuring: 

  • Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • Alan Charles Raul, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP