An energy company beats a price-fixing lawsuit

The Client — A Fortune 100 wholesale energy producer operating across more than thirty states, with complex commercial relationships throughout the regional spot market and a long-standing position as one of the largest counterparties in the index.

The Situation — A consolidated multi-district class action alleged a five-year conspiracy among the country's largest wholesale energy producers to manipulate index pricing. The complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of more than 12,000 commercial purchasers.

The Challenge — Exposure was framed in excess of $4 billion before fees. The plaintiffs' theory tied every named producer to a single econometric model the lead expert had spent five years building, and the conventional defense playbook called for a motion to dismiss, a long discovery phase, and pressure to settle as a class.

What We Did — We declined the wait-and-settle posture. The team coordinated an aggressive Daubert challenge against the class's lead economist before certification briefing closed, paired with rolling document-driven Rule 23 oppositions. Each named plaintiff's purchasing pattern was contested independently, breaking the predominance theory the plaintiffs had built their model around.

The Results — The court denied certification on predominance and adequacy grounds and excluded the plaintiffs' econometric model in the same order. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed with prejudice rather than proceed on individual claims. The client recovered fees under the forum's prevailing-party provision.