Don Copeland, et al. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., et al.; Portable Power, Inc., et al. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., et al.; Kimberly Schuman, et al. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., et al.    

Analysis Group was retained by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of Energizer Holdings and Latham and Watkins on behalf of Walmart, defendants in three related antitrust class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Energizer batteries. The plaintiffs alleged that Energizer and Walmart colluded to fix the prices of disposable batteries and eliminate price competition, particularly from online sellers. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ conduct caused them to pay supracompetitive prices for batteries and sought to certify three classes: wholesale consumers who purchased batteries directly from Energizer, consumers who purchased Energizer batteries directly from brick-and-mortar Walmart stores, and consumers who purchased the affected batteries indirectly.

An Analysis Group team led by Managing Principal Maria Garibotti, Principal Mark Lewis, Vice President Rebecca Scott, and Manager Hunter Holland supported two experts in the litigation, both of whom filed expert reports and testified at deposition. Academic affiliate Professor Catherine Tucker rebutted the plaintiffs’ experts’ econometric analyses underlying the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23. Specifically, Professor Tucker showed that the experts’ difference-in-differences regression analyses could not plausibly generate but-for prices for batteries during the class periods by identifying methodological flaws in the experts’ econometric analyses that undermined their ability to isolate the effects of the alleged conduct. Therefore, she concluded, the experts’ models could not establish antitrust harm on a class-wide basis. The team also supported academic affiliate Professor Jeffrey Prince, who opined on the economics and class certification implications of the alleged conduct.

Repeatedly citing Professor Tucker’s submissions in the opinion, a judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California denied certification of all three classes, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish antitrust harm on a class-wide basis.