Plaintiffs Denied Class Certification in Chinese Automotive Lawsuit

A team of attorneys, including Neal Marder of Winston & Strawn, successfully defended China Automotive Systems against a two-part lawsuit challenging its accounting practices. The efforts of Neal Marder and his team led to the judge denying shareholders’ class certification in their lawsuit, signaling a setback for a slew of similar lawsuits against Chinese reverse-merger companies. US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest stated that the plaintiffs, three purchasers of China Automotive securities, did not effectively show that they were entitled to a class-action lawsuit.

The case stemmed from a complaint that China Automotive Systems released false and misleading accounting statements that were later revealed to be the product of accounting fraud. When the company announced that it would restate its finances, its stock price dropped and the plaintiffs who sued wanted their lawsuit to represent all American investors who bought stock in China Automotive Systems during that time period. China Automotive was one of many Chinese companies that entered the US stock market through a reverse merger during this time, and its victory in this lawsuit was widely lauded as one of the first of its kind.

Class Action Lawsuits and Out-of-Court Settlements

An accomplished attorney with many years of experience in commercial litigation and class action lawsuits, Neal Marder currently works as a partner in the Los Angeles office of Winston & Strawn. In November 2011, Neal Marder and several associates at Winston & Strawn published an article titled “Out-of-Court Settlement Programs Can Avert a Class Action,” which discusses the potential value of settling in a timely fashion.

In the article, Marder argues that a quick settlement dissuades the court from completing a class certification that would enable plaintiffs to seek significant damages on behalf of a large group of individuals. Additionally, a quick settlement represents an equitable out-of-court solution and has the potential to counter negative publicity and restore goodwill with the company’s customers. Although settlements often require defendants to incur a large lump sum cost, they eliminate the need for extended litigation fees and prove themselves highly cost-effective in the long run.

Law Seminars International Hosts 2013 Conference on Class Actions

---

---

---

On May 13th, legal professionals from across the country joined Law Seminars International (LSI) in Seattle for the two-day Comprehensive Conference on Class Actions and Other Aggregate Litigation. Themed “Practice Tips for Keeping Up With a Rapidly Changing Landscape,” the meeting covered class action trends across the United States, highlighted new Supreme Court cases, and discussed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Attorneys, business executives, government officials, and consultants alike benefited from analysis of some of 2012’s most important class action developments. The program, which featured talks by such leading attorneys as Charles B. Casper and Timothy G. Fielden, provided 13.25 Washington Continuing Legal Education credits.

Neal Marder, a partner at Winston & Strawn’s Los Angeles offices, spoke at LSI’s Seventh Annual Comprehensive Conference on Litigating Class Actions in 2011. During this presentation, he lectured on how increased regulation, specifically through the Dodd Frank Act, could lead to increased rates of class action lawsuits. Named one of the Best Lawyers in America for six consecutive years, Neal Marder regular speaks at national conferences and hosts webinars and other educational events related to class action litigation.

Averting Class Action Lawsuits with Good Faith Practices

An experienced attorney and current partner in Winston & Strawn’s Los Angeles office, Neal Marder has contributed to a number of articles about defending against class action lawsuits. In a 2011 article titled “Class Actions: Act Early, Stay a Step Ahead of the Plaintiff’s Bar,” Neal Marder and his co-authors discuss several ways to avoid class actions, including the implementation of good faith business practices.

In cases involving damage claims, defendants typically have time to resolve the case before the plaintiff can file for a class action. As such, companies can reduce the impact of a claim by adhering to high standards of conduct and being responsive to communications and complaints from customers and employees. Businesses that employ these practices can resolve small disputes in a timely and effective manner, which prevents them from gaining momentum with a large class of individuals. If a pending class shrinks to a small number, most plaintiff’s attorneys will not be incentivized to pursue a class action lawsuit.

Neal Marder on Antitrust Laws – The Clayton Act of 1914

Throughout his career in litigation law, Neal Marder has established himself as a dedicated and highly capable attorney. As a partner with Winston & Strawn and chairman of the firm’s consumer class actions practice, Neal Marder concentrates primarily on complex commercial matters such as antitrust litigation. Aside from the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, perhaps no law in American history has bolstered antitrust regulations more significantly than the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Enacted by Congress in 1914, the Clayton Act provided federal regulation in several areas not covered by the earlier Sherman Act, including mergers and acquisitions. The Clayton Act also addressed a practice known as interlocking directorates, whereby one person or entity makes decisions for two companies in direct competition with one another. A 1936 amendment to the Clayton Act banned discriminatory business practices between merchants, while a 1976 amendment forced companies to notify the federal government before engaging in large mergers or acquisitions.

Neal Marder Comments on Securities Litigation Uniform Standards

An accomplished attorney with considerable experience in the field of business and commercial litigation, Neal Marder is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Winston & Strawn, a prominent law firm with operations throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. In May 2012, Neal Marder contributed to an article titled “Federal Securities Law Doesn’t Preclude State Law Class Actions,” in which he discussed the significance of Roland v. Green as it relates to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

A class action lawsuit involving some 30,000 investors defrauded in a $7 million Ponzi scheme, Roland v. Green challenged the interpretation of SLUSA, which prevented the maintenance of state law class action suits connected with the sale or purchase of covered securities. A number of appeals courts interpreted SLUSA in different ways, which opened the door for vigorous debate among legal experts.

According to Mr. Marder, Roland v. Green could cause the U.S. Supreme Court to conduct a review of the SLUSA preclusion provision.

Neal Marder Examines Two Greenwashing Cases

Over the last several years, Neal Marder has written and spoken about the rising trend of greenwashing, an advertising technique that involves falsely showcasing a company’s environmental commitment. Neal Marder addressed the topic in an article titled “The ‘Reasonable Consumer’s’ View of Green Labels—Lessons From Two Greenwashing Cases,” which appeared in GCI Magazine in March 2012.

In this piece, he and colleague Christian E. Dodd highlighted several examples of greenwashing that led to class actions. The authors cited the 2010 case Koh v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc., in which SC Johnson placed a “Greenlist Ingredients” “seal of approval” on a bottle of Windex and advertised Greenlist as an environmental rating system; however, because SC Johnson fabricated the Greenlist logo and standards itself, the plaintiff argued that the company had engaged in false advertising. Consulting the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California concluded that the label was indeed misleading to a reasonable consumer and allowed the plaintiff to move forward with the class action suit.

In a second example, the authors examined the 2011 case Hill v. Roll International Corp. In this case, the plaintiff argued that Fiji Water has misrepresented its environmental commitment with a “Green Drop” on its label; however, a California appellate court determined that the symbol would not cause a reasonable customer to assume that an independent organization had certified the product as green.

A partner and leading attorney at Winston & Strawn’s Los Angeles offices, Neal Marder has published an array of other articles, which are listed on www.winston.com.

Neal Marder Presents at 2011 Law Seminars International Conference

In May of 2011, Winston & Strawn partner Neal Marder took part in a discussion at the Seventh Annual Comprehensive Conference on Litigating Class Actions. The Seattle-based event set out to share strategies and developments in class actions which could help legal practitioners address many ethical and practical concerns which crop up while navigating these types of cases.

The conference featured dialogue on topics such as motion issues in class action suits, trends in national class action litigation, and the role of Internet advertising and privacy in class actions. Neal Marder participated in a panel titled “Emerging Subject Areas Where Regulatory Enforcement May Lead to Class Action,” during which he discussed the potential impact of the Dodd Frank Act on class action litigation.

Mr. Marder currently serves as the chair of the consumer class actions practice with Winston & Strawn. Neal Marder concentrates his practice in a variety of areas including class action and litigation.

Neal Marder on Antitrust Laws – The Sherman Act of 1890

A successful attorney with substantial litigation experience, Neal Marder is a partner with Winston & Strawn, LLP, in Los Angeles. Mr. Marder focuses his practice on several topics within the field of business law, including antitrust litigation. Defined as laws preventing business practices of an anti-competitive nature, antitrust litigation first appeared in the United States in 1890 with the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Often referred to simply as the Sherman Act, this legislation illegalized monopolization and prevented businesses from restraining trade through contracts, combinations, or conspiracy. In order to allow business to flow freely and healthy competition to exist, the Sherman Act outlawed unreasonable “restraint of trade,” such as the trust-related strategies employed by the Standard Oil Company toward the end of the 1870s. While enforcement of the Sherman Act today takes place primarily in civil courts, the law also stands as a criminal statute that can result in prison sentences of up to 10 years.

Neal Marder Discusses Overlooked Strategies to Defeat Class Actions

An experienced business and commercial law attorney based in Los Angeles, California, Neal Marder currently works as a partner with Winston & Strawn, a major international law firm with operations throughout Europe, Asia, and North America. In September 2011, he led an instructional eLunch titled “Effective But Overlooked Strategies to Defeat Class Actions.” In the interactive webinar, Mr. Marder focused on the court ruling on class certification, which often represents a pivotal point in a class action.

Defendants should maintain an in-depth knowledge of ways to defeat class certification, often by aggressive legal tactics. In particular, the presentation provided practical tips for implementing high quality out-of-court settlement programs and striking class allegations at the pleading stage. Mr. Marder also taught attendees about pleading compulsory counterclaims that identify individual issues and filing motions to preempt and deny class certification.

By utilizing one or more of these lesser-known strategies, defendants in class actions can greatly increase their chances of defeating the suits and emerging victorious.