Monument Economics Group

Selected Experience

   

 

Selected Experience

 

In Re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation

In 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of gypsum wallboard alleging price-fixing by Defendants.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether the co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of gypsum wallboard; whether prices of gypsum wallboard were artificially inflated due to the alleged cartel; whether there was widespread payment of overcharges across the proposed class; and whether aggregate damages to the proposed class as a whole could be reliably computed using standard economic methods and analyses.  Dr. Lamb filed two Expert Reports concerning class certification issues, two Expert Reports concerning liability and damages issues,* and one Supplemental Expert Report responding to a report submitted by a technical advisor retained by the Court.  Dr. Lamb also testified at deposition twice concerning class certification and at an extensive evidentiary hearing on the issue of class certification.

* In February 2016, the Court denied summary judgment to all but one of the Defendants remaining in the litigation.

On August 23, 2017, the Court certified the proposed class of direct purchasers, citing extensively to Dr. Lamb’s analysis of class-wide issues and testimony.  For instance, in its Opinion, the Court noted: “Dr. Lamb’s expert opinion fits the facts of the case, is relevant, and is therefore admissible to show classwide injury and measurable damages in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. […] The Court […] has thoroughly considered Dr. Lamb’s opinion in its decision on the DPPs’ Class Certification Motion.”  The Court also noted that Dr. Lamb “presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that all or nearly all Plaintiffs were impacted by Defendants’ alleged agreement to fix prices. This supports the conclusion that Plaintiffs have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they can prove antitrust impact on a classwide basis.”  Further, the Court stated that Dr. Lamb’s “opinions and testimony are entitled to more weight than [Defendants’ economist] Dr. Hausman’s, in large part because his opinions adhere to the factual record.”  Similarly, in its April 2017 Order denying Defendants’ Daubert motion against Dr. Lamb, the Court found that Dr. Lamb’s “reports, and his testimony, establish that he has carefully acquainted himself with the issues of this case, as well as the factual record, and that his reports are ‘reliable’ and also ‘fit’ to the issues and facts in this case.”

The Court’s Memorandum re: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification can be read here.


In Re: Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation

In 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of titanium dioxide citing allegations of price fixing behavior.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether it was possible to establish, using evidence common to the proposed class as a whole, that the Defendants agreed to restrict supply and/or fix or stabilize prices of titanium dioxide; whether proposed class members were impacted by the alleged cartel, and more specifically whether all, or nearly all, proposed class members paid an overcharge on their titanium dioxide purchases as a result of the alleged cartel; and whether a formulaic methodology was available to measure total damages suffered by the proposed  class due to the alleged cartel.  Dr. Lamb filed two Declarations concerning class certification issues and two Declarations concerning liability and damages issues.  Dr. Lamb also testified at deposition four times.

The Court certified the class in this matter on August 28, 2012 specifically citing Dr. Lamb’s analysis of class-wide issues, stating “Dr. Lamb’s regression analysis accurately reflects the characteristics of the titanium dioxide industry, and the facts in this case.”  In December 2013, the Court approved a series of settlements reached between the class and the Defendants collectively worth over $163 million.  


In Re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation

In 2010, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of indirect purchasers of flexible polyurethane foam citing allegations of price-fixing behavior.  Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether it was possible to establish, using economic analyses and evidence common to the proposed class as a whole, that the Defendants agreed to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices and allocate customers for flexible polyurethane foam; whether proposed class members were impacted by the alleged misconduct, and more specifically whether all, or nearly all, proposed class members paid an overcharge on their flexible polyurethane foam purchases as a result of the alleged misconduct; and whether a formulaic methodology was available to measure total damages suffered by the proposed class due to the alleged misconduct. Lamb filed two Declarations concerning class certification issues and two Declarations concerning liability and damages issues.  Dr. Lamb also testified at deposition four times in connection with his Declarations, and testified at the class certification hearing.

The Court certified the indirect purchaser class in this matter on April 9, 2014 specifically citing Dr. Lamb’s analysis of class-wide issues.  For instance, in certifying the class, the Court stated that “Indirect Purchasers offer Lamb’s expert testimony, which contains a detailed examination of discovery material produced in this matter, corroborating Indirect Purchasers’ understanding of Defendants’ business.  Lamb presents commonly-accepted regression models to measure the amount of overcharge suffered by direct purchasers, and then measures the extent to which that overcharge found its way through the distribution chain to indirect purchasers.”  The Court also noted that “Indirect Purchasers present a workable damages methodology” in reference to Dr. Lamb’s analysis.  In January 2016, the Court approved a final settlement of $151.25 million, the fourth largest settlement ever recovered by indirect purchasers in the United States.


In Re: Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Litigation

In 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of aftermarket automotive lighting products citing allegations of price-fixing behavior.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether all proposed class members were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct.  He was also asked to analyze if it is possible to measure class-wide damages suffered by the proposed class as a result of the alleged misconduct without resorting to individual inquiry and, if so, the amount of these damages.  Dr. Lamb filed four Expert Reports and one Expert Declaration concerning class certification and damages issues.  He also testified twice at deposition and once at the class certification hearing concerning these issues.

The Court certified the class in this matter specifically citing Dr. Lamb’s analysis of class-wide issues, stating that his analysis provided “a sufficient basis from which to conclude that Plaintiffs would adduce common proof concerning the effect of Defendants’ alleged price-fixing conspiracy on prices class members paid.”  Furthermore, on May 14, 2014 the Court granted final approval to settlements reached between the class and the Defendants worth over $50 million.


Fond Du Lac Bumper Exchange Inc., et al. v. Jui Li Enterprise Company Ltd. et al.

In 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of aftermarket automotive sheet metal parts citing allegations of price-fixing behavior.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether all proposed class members were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct.  He was also asked to analyze if it is possible to measure class-wide damages suffered by the proposed class as a result of the alleged misconduct without resorting to individual inquiry and, if so, the amount of these damages. Dr. Lamb filed two Affidavits concerning data issues; three Expert Reports concerning class certification and damages issues, and one Expert Report concerning merits and damages issues.  Dr. Lamb also testified at deposition once in connection to this matter.

In 2016, the Court certified the class in this matter specifically citing Dr. Lamb’s analysis of class-wide issues: "In sum, Lamb’s analysis and conclusions regarding common impact appear to be sound. He looked at evidence common to the class and performed a multiple regression analysis to determine that anti-competitive conduct would have affected prices generally.  He did this by factoring out all variables which may affect price except the anti-competitive conduct and comparing the actual price paid with the price customers would otherwise have paid.  From this, he was able to determine that anti-competitive conduct would have artificially raised prices."


CEMEX Caracas Investments B.V. and CEMEX Caracas II Investments B.V., v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

This matter involved arbitration proceedings between cement manufacturer CEMEX and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, following then-President Hugo Chavez’s decision to nationalize Venezuela’s cement industry.  Dr. Russell Lamb was one of two economists retained by Counsel for the Respondent to calculate the value of the operating assets of CEMEX Venezuela and to determine the value of Claimant’s equity stake in CEMEX Venezuela.  Dr. Lamb co-authored an Expert Report concerning this valuation. In 2011, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $600 million.

 


The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, v. LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd., et al.

In 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, as well as televisions, computer monitors, and laptops containing LCD panels citing allegations of price-fixing behavior.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs retained Dr. Russell Lamb to analyze whether proposed class members would have been injured as a result of the alleged misconduct.  He was also asked to analyze whether it is possible to measure class-wide damages suffered by the proposed class as a result of the alleged misconduct based on common evidence without resorting to individual inquiry.  Dr. Lamb filed two Affidavits concerning class certification issues.  Dr. Lamb also testified at cross examination in connection to this matter.

In 2011, the Court certified the class in this matter specifically citing Dr. Lamb’s analysis of class-wide issues, stating that his analysis constituted “evidence of a viable methodology for the determination of loss on a class-wide basis.” To date, Plaintiffs have reached settlements with a number of Defendants totaling approximately USD$48.43 million.