Was the March 2013 decision in Comcast a “game-changer” that set the stage for more rigor and analysis of merits issues in class certification? Some have argued that little has changed with respect to Rule 23(b)(3) class certification requirements while others say the case ushered in a new era with a higher standard.

Join us for breakfast on 11 May for an intimate and lively discussion with an experienced group of counsel and economists. Topics to be discussed include the following:

• Ascertainability–How high should the bar be set for plaintiff’s counsel in identifying unnamed class members? Does this issue doom all indirect purchaser classes? Without a robust way of identifying class members, is it possible to size the damages class or the magnitude of harm?
• Are injunctive classes the new wave? How do you defeat class certification when the plaintiffs are only claiming that there is a common question that they want tried and are not claiming common impact?
• How does the “Individual Impact” requirement shape regression analysis at the class certification stage?
• Modeling damages–How should counsel and economists approach the question of whether and how damages can be modeled on a class-wide basis if there is uncertainty about the theory of damage that is ultimately accepted for class action treatment?
• Should we think carefully before we make it too difficult to certify a class? How else would these disputes be settled? Will undesirable conduct be adequately deterred?

Registration and Breakfast: 8:00 am
Seminar: 8:30-9:30 am
Q&A, coffee, and networking will follow the main seminar presentations.

Location: Mercer offices | 1050 Connecticut Avenue | 7th Floor | Washington, DC 20036

CLE: Application for approval for this program is pending with the Virginia Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Board for 1.5 CLE credits.

Seminar Panelists