Does a plaintiff have standing to sue a company in the aftermath of a data breach when that plaintiff has not suffered an injury, such as the unauthorized use of credit card information? This issue has been the subject of much debate in the courts.
Join a panel of economists and plaintiff and defense lawyers in a discussion of the recent legal and economic trends.
To watch an exclusive interview with Kim Kalmanson on the recent Spokeo v. Robins SCOTUS decision, check out this article on the Lawline Blog.
I. Understand the legal landscape including:
II. Grasp the economic theories of standing with specific focus on whether there is an “intrinsic value” to privacy
Deborah Renner focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation, consumer fraud, false advertising, data breach, ERISA, and securities class actions. Deborah has successfully represented numerous companies in nationwide, multidistrict and state class actions. Deborah frequently advises companies on class action issues and regulatory inquiries. Among her areas of knowledge and experience, Deborah is certified in information privacy.
Kimberly Kalmanson is an attorney with a private practice in New York City. Concentrating her practice on business and commercial litigation and transactions, Ms. Kalmanson represents a variety of clients in commercial lawsuits, primarily involving contract, securities, and fraud disputes in both federal and state court, as well as before FINRA and the American Arbitration Association.
Prior to establishing a solo practice, Ms. Kalmanson prosecuted and managed complex securities fraud cases against national and international companies and banking institutions on behalf of institutional investors at Labaton Sucharow LLP. There, Ms. Kalmanson’s primary focus was on residential mortgage-backed securities and the subprime mortgage lending and securitization industries. In addition, Ms. Kalmanson was primarily responsible for, and coordinated and managed multiple bankruptcy claims in a high profile federal bankruptcy. Before joining Labaton Sucharow, Ms. Kalmanson was an associate at Dentons US LLP (formerly, Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal LLP and SNR Denton US LLP) where her practice focused on complex civil litigation, as well as white collar criminal and government investigations work. At Dentons, Ms. Kalmanson represented banks, institutional lenders and insurance companies in a variety of suits arising out of defaulted and distressed assets. Ms. Kalmanson has represented a variety of clients in breach of contract and fraud actions. One notable matter involved obtaining a $76 million summary judgment award on behalf of a European banking group in a suit in in New York federal court against loan guarantors, a judgment that was affirmed on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, Ms. Kalmanson represented an insurance carrier in a suit to adjudicate the obligations of a financial institution managing a reference pool of assets underlying a series of credit swap transactions. Ms. Kalmanson has also represented a variety of institutions and individuals in government and internal investigations.
Dr. Garrett Glasgow, Senior Consultant, joined NERA from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he was an Associate Professor of Political Science. He specializes in quantitative methodology and is a leading practitioner of discrete choice methods, which are widely used in the antitrust, energy, environment, and many other areas. He introduced several new discrete choice methods to the field of political science through his analyses of individual-level political behavior and parliamentary government formation. Dr. Glasgow’s research has been published in leading political science journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, the British Journal of Political Science, and Political Analysis.
At NERA Dr. Glasgow is part of both the Antitrust and Competition and the Environmental Economics practices, and has worked on several high profile merger and environmental quality cases. He is also focused on issues of privacy and modeling data breach consequences.
Prior to joining the faculty at UCSB, Dr. Glasgow was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences (CBRSS) at Harvard University. Dr. Glasgow holds a PhD and MA in Social Sciences from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and a BA, cum laude, in Political Science/Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles.
Ms. Butler is Vice President in NERA’s Survey and Statistical Sampling Practice. She is a testifying expert in survey research, sampling, market research, and statistical analysis and has applied her expertise in a wide range of projects and litigation cases. In the area of intellectual property, she has designed and testified on surveys used to establish likelihood of confusion, secondary meaning, and issues related to fame. Ms. Butler has designed surveys to establish the incremental demand created by a patented feature. In mass torts and class actions, she has conducted work to evaluate consumer understandings of advertising or willingness to pay for allegedly defective goods. She has extensive testimonial experience in matters of false advertising. In the antitrust area, she has designed and evaluated surveys offered to estimate market shares and as evidence of cross shopping behaviors. Ms. Butler has also conducted surveys and statistical analyses in labor cases. She has also reviewed secondary market research, with a focus on evaluating its reliability as evidence in antitrust analyses. In antitrust, class actions, as well as the areas of water and the environment, Ms. Butler has designed and evaluated complex willingness to pay and hypothetical choice surveys. Ms. Butler is currently interested in how survey based methods may be used to provide evidence in data breach cases.
Very good, substantive legal content in the materials.
Very informative and engaging speakers.
Lawline has met my continuing legal education obligations on more than one occasion. Thus, the reason is obvious a repeat subscriber. The topic made available are always informative and timely.
This is the best, most interesting CLE I have viewed to date on your website.
very good real world information
Best I have taken.
Very interesting discussion group.
These guys are really well informed and give great insight and knowledge on this these complex topics.
The material presented was interesting, and panel asked thoughtful questions of each other. Good panel.
interesting even though not in same field of law.
More interesting than expected.
Fascinating cutting-edge material. Well presented
Very informative and intriguing subject. I appreciated both the drill down on significant case law and the cutting edge discussion on quantification of damages in the second half. Would like to hear more on this Data Breach hot topic!
Broad range of knowledge among panelists.
Good presentation of a complex problem
Good presentation by all speakers