Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Lex Machina Launches Antitrust Litigation Module and Releases Report on Antitrust Litigation

When Lex Machina was acquired by LexisNexis last year, the company promised that the huge Lexis data archive would be leveraged to expand Lex Machina beyond its original intellectual property
offerings. Last summer they announced the launch of a securities analytics product. Today they are announcing the launch of an antitrust analytics product.

The new module will enable litigators to ask new questions and gain new insights based on a data generated by more than 7,800 antitrust cases which have been active since 2009--- those cases have already resulted in $20 billion in damages awarded. Like its predecessors. the platform allows a lawyer to generate custom insights into trends in antitrust case timing, resolutions, finding, damages, remedies, opposing counsel, law firms, parties, judges and venues including multidistrict litigation cases.

“In antitrust litigation, where potentially billions of dollars and companies’ entire futures could be at stake, Legal Analytics for Antitrust helps law firms, in-house counsel and government attorneys develop winning case strategies and data-driven arguments based on the outcomes of thousands of prior cases,” said Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina. “The power of Legal Analytics truly becomes apparent in multidistrict litigation where unraveling some of the more complex cases could encumber attorneys for months, instead of finding the desired insights in minutes.” 
New Features:


·         Expanded case coverage: Attorneys can now analyze federal cases brought under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Robinson-Patman Act, or Federal Trade Commission Act.

·         New data source and case linking: Existing Lex Machina case data is integrated with data from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to provide accurate MDL case counts. The platform also links procedurally connected cases to let attorneys analyze them in the right context.

·         Antitrust findings analytics: New tags for Class Actions, DOJ/FTC Enforcement cases, Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination cases, and cases where counterclaims were asserted.

·         Enhanced case timing analytics: Added median days to Dismissal, Class Certification and Summary Judgment Orders — useful for budgeting, resource allocation and legal strategy.

The Report Lex Machina has also underscored the importance of the launch by releasing a report chocked full of high level data and insights based on all antitrust cases filed since 2009:

Time to Injunction, Dismissal, Class certification
·         Judge Marianne Battani of the Eastern District of Michigan has handled the most antitrust cases (393 cases) since 2009 - more than twice as much as the next leading judge.
 
·         The top defendants since 2009 include financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase & Co (270 cases), Goldman Sachs & Co (192 cases), UBS (188 cases), and Deutsche Bank (185 cases); electronics companies like Panasonic (265 cases) and Hitachi (253 cases), and several airlines such as Delta (231 cases), American Airlines (212 cases), Southwest (211 cases), and United Airlines (206 cases).
 
·         Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy is the top law firm representing plaintiffs (255 cases), followed by Miller Canfield (248 cases), and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis (236 cases).
 
·         Latham & Watkins (340 cases), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (334 cases), and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (294 cases) are the top law firms representing defendants.
 
·         The median time to the grant of a permanent injunction is just under a year and a half (507 days).Judgments favoring the defense side (especially findings of “no antitrust injury,” “no sherman act violation § 1 (restraint of trade), and “no sherman act violation § 2 (monopolization) tend come from judges - either as a judgment on the pleadings, or as a summary judgment.

·         Judgments favoring the defense side (especially findings of “no antitrust injury,” “no sherman act violation § 1 (restraint of trade), and “no sherman act violation § 2 (monopolization) tend come from judges - either as a judgment on the pleadings, or as a summary judgment.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment