Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Team Led by Steven Bizar Wins Second Reversal of Class Certification in Antitrust Action
Published In: Legal Affairs, Pennsylvania 
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:57 PM
< Archive for Mar 2010 >
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the second time in under a month, attorneys from Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC have won the reversal of a class certification decision in an antitrust action. Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court opinion that had certified six classes consisting of direct purchasers of organotin heat stabilizers, mixed metal heat stabilizers, epoxidized soybean oil, acrylic impact modifiers, methacrylate butadiene styrene impact modifiers, and acrylic processing aids, respectively, between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2003. In a one-page order in In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for further consideration in light of that court's December 30, 2008, decision in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation.

In the Hydrogen Peroxide case, which was argued successfully by Steven E. Bizar of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, the Third Circuit clarified the standard that district courts must apply when deciding whether or not to certify a class. In Hydrogen Peroxide, the Third Circuit held that the decision to certify a class calls for "findings by the Court not merely a 'threshold showing' by a party, that each requirement of Rule 23 is met," and that the district court must resolve all factual and legal disputes relevant to class certification even if they overlap with the merits. In Hydrogen Peroxide, the Third Circuit also held that a plaintiff must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requirements of Rule 23 "have been met" before the district court may certify a class. Where there is a genuine dispute over whether the fact of impact can be established through common proof, the court of appeals held that the district court must consider all of the parties' evidence, including conflicting expert evidence presented by the defendants. The court of appeals explained that "resolving expert disputes in order to determine whether a class certification requirement has been met is always a task for the court," even if a dispute might implicate the credibility of the experts or overlap with the underlying merits of the case.

In the Plastics Additives case, the Buchanan attorneys had argued on appeal that the district court, like the district court in Hydrogen Peroxide, had failed to consider evidence presented by defendants' experts showing that the sales data for the products at issue showed individualized pricing to customers, and that the sheer number of distinct products at issue made it clear that an individualized inquiry (i.e., impact) would be required to establish whether or not any individual class member suffered any injury from the alleged conspiracy. Defendants further explained that such individualized inquiry into the fact of damages precludes classwide resolution of the claims.

Taken together, the Third Circuit's decisions in Hydrogen Peroxide and Plastics Additives significantly clarify what district courts must do when conducting the "rigorous analysis" required to resolve contested class certification motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Steven E. Bizar, Howard D. Scher, Thomas P. Manning, Francis X. Taney, Jr., Landon Y. Jones and Jill Spiker of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC in Philadelphia represented defendant Arkema Inc. in both the district court and the court of appeals. The case is captioned In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation, Case Nos. 07-2159 and 07-2418 (3d Cir.). As noted, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney attorneys also represented the successful appellants in Hydrogen Peroxide.

About the Firm

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC has nearly 500 attorneys and government relations professionals practicing throughout the United States, with multiple offices in California, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as offices in Delaware, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Spanning all of the firm's offices, Buchanan's Antitrust and Trade Regulation practice represents major corporations in high stakes litigation, including class action defense, white-collar criminal defense, government investigations and merger compliance. Visit www.buchananingersoll.com for more information.


Contact: Lori K. Lecker
Director of Communications & Public Relations
1-800-444-6738, ext. 3929
leckerlk@bipc.com



SOURCE Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC


 
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:57 PM

Share Socially:
BlinkListBlinkList del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg FurlFurl ma.gnoliama.gnolia redditreddit SimpySimpy SpurlSpurl BlogMarksBlogMarks NewsvineNewsvine Share on Facebook Sphere: Related Content

Related Press Releases

Mine Rescue Team in Buchanan Mine
Published In: Business, Pennsylvania, Virginia 
Monday, January 28, 2008 12:23 PM
GameTech Receives Certification for Class III Gaming Device
Published In: Business, Nevada 
Monday, August 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Contact Us | Terms of Use | Trademarks | Privacy Statement
(c) 2008-2009 Press Related