|
|
 |
|
Viewing report
|
|
|
|
The Instant Impact of Behrend v. Comcast Corp. (E.D. Penn. Jan. 7, 2010) on Antitrust Lawyers, Expert Witnesses, and the Certification of Antitrust Class Actions
ExecSense, June 2010, Minutes: 60
“The Instant Impact of Behrend v. Comcast Corp. (E.D. Penn. Jan. 7 2010) on Antitrust Lawyers, Expert Witnesses, and the Certification of Antitrust Class Actions” is a time efficient way to be in-the-know on the most up to date facts and ramifications of this case and take proactive steps on behalf of current and prospective clients it could impact the most. Take the 60 minutes to view this webinar (on your computer, mobile phone, iPod or printed out) to make sure you have answers ready to key questions you are sure to be asked on the immediate ramifications of this decision by colleagues, clients and other professionals with whom you discuss the case, as courts may now require parties to present expert testimony on the issues of classwide antitrust impact and common proof.
Upon ordering, ExecSense will email you a link to download the webinar for viewing on your computer, mobile media device (iPod/iPhone, Blackberry), or printed out. The downloaded files will include the PowerPoint presentation, audio narration and jpeg images of the slides (for watching on your mobile media device).
The webinar is led by an expert on the ramifications of this case and antitrust class actions, Peter Kumpe, and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the impact of the district court’s ruling on expert witnesses and the certification of antitrust class actions
- Detailed discussion of how courts in other jurisdictions are currently analyzing what a proposed antitrust class must demonstrate to meet the classwide impact and common proof requirements, and the role of expert testimony in meeting those requirements
- Perspective on how the district court’s decision may affect future courts’ analysis of the standards for meeting Rule 23 requirements in antitrust class actions, and specifically when expert testimony will be required in order to demonstrate classwide antitrust impact and common proof
- The 10 questions being asked the most by antitrust lawyers and their clients with respect to how this decision will impact them and what proactive steps they should be taking
- Case studies of what other antitrust lawyers are doing for their clients, now and in the future, based on this ruling
Praise for ExecSense Webinars:
“Was first on the scene with an in depth overview of this game changing decision.” - Howard Grubbs, Practice Group Leader, Womble Carlyle
“If it's up to the minute information that you need, go with ExecSense.” - Christopher J. Dow, Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson
“Thorough, informative and interesting...an efficient, effective means of gaining in depth insight...” - Greg Nowak, Partner, Pepper Hamilton
Customers who bought this item also bought
The Instant Impact of Starr v. Sony BMG Entertainment (2nd Cir. Jan. 13, 2010) on Antitrust Lawyers and the Clarification of Post-Twombly Pleading Standards for Sherman Act Claims
The Instant Impact of Narouz v. Charter Comm., LLC (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2010) on Litigators and the Effect of Settling with the Class Representative on the Appealability of Class Certification Denial
The Instant Impact of Southeast Missouri Hospital v. Bard, Inc. (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) on Potential Antitrust Implications of Medical Supplier Contracts with Group Purchasing Organizations
The Instant Impact of FTC v. Lundbeck Inc. (D. Minn Aug. 31, 2010) on the Continued Use of the Market Definition Analysis in Light of the Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines
The Instant Impact of American and Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry's Sport Center, Inc. (Penn. Aug. 17, 2010) on Insurers' Ability to Recoup Defense Costs for Uninsured Claims
The Instant Impact of In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation (7th Cir. Dec. 29th, 2010) on the Burden Faced by Plaintiffs Pleading an Antitrust Conspiracy Under Twombly
The Instant Impact of PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) on Analysis of Vertical Price Fixing Agreements Under the Rule of Reason Framework
The Instant Impact of Smith v. Xerox Corp. (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010) on Employment Lawyers and the Application of Mixed-Motive Liability to Title VII Retaliation Claims
The Instant Impact of City of Emeryville v. Sherwin Williams Company (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2010) on Contribution Protection Under CERCLA - What is the Value and is There a Way to Protect Settling Parties Against Future Suits
The Instant Impact of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. (E.D. Penn. Nov. 10, 2009) on Bankruptcy Lawyers & Secured Creditors’ Rights in Section 1129(b)(2)(A) Cramdowns
|
|
|
|
