Plaintiffs` Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

Transcription

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
IN RE NORTEL NETWORKS
CORP. "ERISA" LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MDL Docket No. 03:03-MD-1537
Judge John T. Nixon
Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant
This Document Relates to: All Cases
NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE SETTLEMENT,
PRELIMINARILY CERTIFY A SETTLEMENT CLASS,
APPROVE CLASS NOTICE, AND SET A FAIRNESS HEARING
Named Plaintiffs James Kauffman, Michael Zafarano, and Carol Felts (hereinafter
“Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Class of participants and beneficiaries of
the Nortel Long-Term Investment Plan (as more specifically defined in the accompanying
memorandum), hereby move the Court for an Order granting preliminary approval of the parties’
Stipulation of Settlement, conditionally certifying a Settlement Class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1) and (2), approving the form and manner of notice to Class Members, and setting a final
Fairness Hearing.
The Stipulation of Settlement reached in this action provides for a Gross Settlement Fund
totaling $21,500,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class. The Settlement was reached after
years of intensive motion practice, discovery, and arm’s length negotiations with and without a
mediator. The Settlement provides significant benefits to the Settlement Class, while removing
the risk and delay associated with further litigation involving corporations that are now partially
or completely insolvent.
1
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
Case 3:03-md-01537 Document 280
Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5972
For the foregoing reasons, the Named Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court enter the
Preliminary Settlement Approval Order submitted herewith, see Stip. Settle, Ex. C. In doing so,
the Court (1) preliminary approves the Settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable; (2)
conditionally certifies the proposed Settlement Class; (3) sets a Fairness Hearing, along with any
deadlines for Lead Counsel to file and serve their motion for final approval of the proposed
Settlement and their motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses and Case Contribution
Compensation for the Named Plaintiffs; and (4) directs notice to the Class Members.
Dated: August 10, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ James G. Stranch, III
James G. Stranch, III
Michael J. Wall
Joe Paul Leniski, Jr.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
& JENNINGS, PLLC
227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
Nashville, TN 37201-1631
Todd S. Collins
Ellen Noteware
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Co-lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
Ron Kilgard
Garry A. Gotto
Laurie B. Ashton
KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C.
National Bank Plaza
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85012
2
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
T. David Copley
Lynn L. Sarko
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Robert A. Izard
IZARD NOBEL LLP
One Corporate Center, Suite 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
3
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was forwarded via the Court’s electronic filing system to the following on August 10, 2011:
Todd S. Collins, Esq.
Ellen Noteware, Esq.
1622 Locust Street
tcollins@bm.net
enoteware@bm.net
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, et al.
Steven G. Simmons
211 Commerce St., Ste. 800
Nashville, TN 37201
stevengsimmons@yahoo.com
BARRETT JOHNSTON LLC
Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
George Edward Barrett, Esq.
Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
217 Second Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37201
tmiles@barrettjohnston.com
gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com
djohnston@barrettjohnston.com
NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
Gerald D. Neenan, Esq.
Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr., Esq.
2000 One Nashville Place
150 Fourth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37219
gneenan@nealharwell.com
aharwell@nealharwell.com
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
P. O. Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215-0734
pknashlaw@aol.com
4
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
BONE MCALLESTER NORTON, PLLC
C. David Briley, Esq.
511 Union Street, Suite 1600
Nashville City Center
Nashville, TN 37219
dbriley@bonelaw.com
THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN
Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
217 Broadway, Ste. 606
New York, NY 10007
elanfirm@yahoo.com
JACKSON LEWIS LLP
Rene E. Thorne, Esq.
Jason M. Stein, Esq.
Susanne U. Veters, Esq.
Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1900
New Orleans, LA 70130
thorner@jacksonlewis.com
steinj@jacksonlewis.com
vetersS@jacksonlewis.com
chris.williams@jacksonlewis.com
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Howard Shapiro, Esq.
The Poydras Center, Suite 1800
909 Poydras Street
hshapiro@proskauer.com
RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSEN PLC
Gregory S. Reynolds, Esq.
Steven A. Riley, Esq.
James N. Bowen, Esq.
1906 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
greynolds@rwjplc.com
sriley@rwjplc.com
jimbowen@rwjplc.com
5
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Stacey C. S. Cerrone, Esq.
909 Poydras Street, Ste. 1100
scerrone@proskauer.com
ROBBINS UMEDA, LLP
Brian J. Robbins
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
brobbins@robbinsumeda.com
KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
Ron Kilgard
Garry A. Gotto
Laurie B. Ashton
3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85012
rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
ggotto@krplc.com
lashton@krplc.com
KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
T. David Copley
Lynn L. Sarko
Seattle, WA 98101
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP
Ken L. Hashimoto, Esq.
Craig A. Stewart, Esq.
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
ken_hashimoto@aporter.com
craig.stewart@aporter.com
IZARD NOBEL LLP
Robert Izard, Esq.
One Corporate Center, Ste. 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
firm@snlaw.net
6
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
STULL, STULL, & BRODY
Edwin J. Mills
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
ssbny@aol.com
MORVILLO, ABRAMOWITZ, et al.
Richard F. Albert
James V. Hayes
James R. Stovall
565 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10017
ralbert@maglaw.com
jhayes@maglaw.com
jstovall@maglaw.com
SCHEILS, WINNUBST, SANFORD & BETHUNE
Brian P. Sanford
1701 N. Collins Blvd., Ste 1100
Richardson, TX 75080
bsanford@sandfordbethune.com
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS
Glen M. Connor
2001 Park Place North
P. O. Box 10647
Birmingham, AL 35202-0647
gconnor@wdklaw.com
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS
Deborah Clark-Weintraub
1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10036
dweintraub@wdklaw.com
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
Kurt Olsen, Esq.
1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
ko@klafterolsen.com
/s/ James G. Stranch, III
7
{000458/02211/00231779.DOCX / Ver.1}
EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:03-md-01537 Document 280-1
227 Second Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37201-1631
615-254-8801
Fax: 615-255-5419
Firm Profile:
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC has been providing diverse legal services to its clients for over fifty years.
Originally founded as Crownover, Branstetter & Folk, and now Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, the firm's
senior partner has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America in three practice areas, and five of the firm's partners
are currently listed in The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Labor and Employment. The firm is also listed in
the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. Currently comprised of nine (12) Members and one (1) Associate, the firm
is dedicated to providing a full range of legal services to its diverse clientele. In addition to providing quality legal
services, the firm is proud of the professional and civic leadership that its members have provided both locally and
nationally. Our former Managing Partner, Jane Branstetter Stranch, was nominated by President Obama to the
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and now serves as judge on that court following her recent
confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
Year Established:
1952
Statement of Practice:
General Practice in all State, Federal and Appellate Courts; Class Actions and Complex Litigation; Securities Law;
Shareholder Derivative Law; Consumer Protection; Labor and Employment Law; ERISA and Pension Law;
Commercial Litigation; Utility Law; Municipal Law; Personal Injury; Workers’ Compensation; and, Social Security
Claims.
Firm Members and Associates:
Cecil D. Branstetter, (Member) born Morgan County, Tennessee, December 15, 1920; admitted to bar, 1949,
Tennessee. Education: Lincoln Memorial University and George Washington University (B.A., 1946); Oxford
University, England and Vanderbilt University (J.D., 1949). Order of the Coif; Delta Theta Phi. Member, Board of
Editors, Vanderbilt Law Review, 1949. Member, Tennessee Legislature, 1951-1953. Member: Nashville,
Tennessee (President, Junior Section, 1952-1953) and American Bar Associations; Nashville and Tennessee Bar
Foundations; Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Tennessee Trial Lawyers; American Board of
Trial Advocates; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Practice Areas: Personal Injury; Public Utility
Law; Regulated Industries; Municipal Law; Labor Law; Employment Law; Administrative Law; Civil Litigation.
1
C. Dewey Branstetter, Jr., (Member) born Nashville, Tennessee, June 21, 1956; admitted to bar, 1981, Tennessee
and U.S. District Court, Middle and Eastern Districts of Tennessee; 1982, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Education: Vanderbilt University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1978; J.D., 1981). Phi Beta Kappa; Order of The Coif.
Chief Justice, Vanderbilt Moot Court Board, 1980-1981. Member, 1982-1993 and Chairman, 1986-1989,
Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education. Member: Nashville, Tennessee and American Bar Associations;
Nashville Bar Foundation; Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Practice Areas: Shareholder Derivative Law; Class Actions and Complex Litigation; Securities Law; Tort and
Personal Injury; Labor and Employment; Commercial Litigation; Utility Law; Municipal Law; Civil Litigation.
Randall C. Ferguson, (Member) born Nashville, Tennessee, August 19, 1946; admitted to bar, 1974, Tennessee;
U.S. District Court, Middle and Western Districts of Tennessee; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit; 1978, U.S.
Supreme Court. Education: Tennessee Technological University and University of Tennessee (B.S., 1968);
University of Tennessee (J.D., 1974). Member: Nashville, Tennessee and American Bar; [U.S. Army, 1969-1972].
Practice Areas: Labor and Employment Law; Civil Litigation; Personal Injury and Wrongful Death; Class Actions.
R. Jan Jennings, (Member) born June 21, 1943; admitted to bar, 1975, Tennessee and U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Tennessee; 1976, Georgia and U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; 1979, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit; 1981, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; 1984, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S.
Supreme Court. Education: East Tennessee State University (B.S., 1964; M.B.A., 1966); University of Tennessee
at Knoxville (J.D., 1974). Editor, Tennessee Law Review, 1973-1974. Member, Panel of Arbitrators, American
Arbitration Association. Member: Tennessee Bar Association; State Bar of Georgia. Practice Areas: Litigation;
ERISA; Labor; Personal Injury.
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., (Member) born Mishawaka, Indiana, February 10, 1978; admitted to bar, 2003, Tennessee;
2004, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee; 2005, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee;
2008, U.S. District Court for Western Tennessee; 2005, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Education:
University of Notre Dame (B.A., cum laude, 2000), Vanderbilt University Law School (J.D., 2003). Vanderbilt Bar
Association, President; Trial Advocacy Association, member; Vanderbilt Juvenile Practice Clinic; Member:
Nashville and Tennessee Bar Associations; American Bar Association; Harry Phillips American Inn of Court.
Practice Areas: Civil Litigation; Class Actions and Complex Litigation; Labor and Employment; Consumer
Protection; and ERISA.
Donald L. Scholes, (Member) born Nashville, Tennessee, December 30, 1956; admitted to bar, 1982, Tennessee.
Education: Belmont College (B.S., 1977); University of Tennessee (J.D., 1982). Research Editor, Tennessee Law
Review, 1981-1982; Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Public Service Commission, 1983-1987. Member:
Nashville and Tennessee Bar Associations. Practice Areas: Municipal; Public Utility; Workers Compensation;
Social Security.
James G. Stranch, III, (Member) born Abbeville, South Carolina, February 12, 1947; admitted to bar, 1973,
Tennessee; 1974, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee; U.S. Tax Court; 1980, U.S. Supreme Court;
1982, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit; 1986, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; 1991, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Tennessee; 2008, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee; 2008, U.S. Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 2002, U.S. District Court, Colorado. Education: Dobbins-Bennett High School, Kingsport,
Tennessee; University of Tennessee (B.S., 1969; J.D., 1973). Phi Delta Phi. Member: Appellate Court Nominating
Committee, Secretary, 1985-1991; AFL-CIO Lawyer's Coordinating Advisory Committee; Nashville, Tennessee
2
(Chairman, Labor Law Section, 1991-1992) and American Bar Associations; Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association.
Practice Areas: Labor and Employment; Class Actions and Complex Litigation; Shareholder Derivative Law;
Consumer Protection; ERISA; Securities Law; Civil Litigation; and Municipal Law.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, (Member) born Nashville, Tennessee, February 7, 1979; admitted to bar, 2003, Tennessee,
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee; 2005, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee; 2008,
U.S. District Court for Western Tennessee; 2004 U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Education: Emory
University (B.A. 2000); Vanderbilt University Law School (J.D., 2003). Member: Nashville and Tennessee Bar
Associations; John Marshall American Inns of Court. Practice Areas: Class Actions and Complex Litigation;
Securities Law; Labor and Employment; Consumer Protection; ERISA; Civil Litigation; Personal Injury and
Wrongful Death.
Steven J. Simerlein, (Member), born Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 4, 1960; admitted to bar, 1992,
California, U.S. District Court, Southern and Central Districts of California; 1999, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California; 2006, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; 2009, Tennessee and U.S.
District Court, Western District of Tennessee; 2010, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Education: Tulane
University (B.A., cum laude, 1983); Loyola Law School, Los Angeles (J.D., 1991). Senior Notes & Comments
Editor, Loyola International and Comparative Law Journal, 1990-1991. Member: Nashville and American
Bar Associations. Practice Areas: Class and Shareholder Derivative Actions, Complex Litigation; Consumer
Protection, Securities Law.
Michael G. Stewart, (Member) born Alexandria, Virginia, January 30, 1965; admitted to bar, 1994.
Education: University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1987); University of Tennessee College of Law (J.D. 1994).
Member: Nashville, Tennessee, and American Bar Associations. Practice Areas: Class Actions and
Complex Litigation; Securities; Consumer Protection.
Michael J. Wall, (Member) born Cincinnati, Ohio, May 7, 1980; admitted to bar, 2005, Tennessee; 2006, U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Tennessee. Education: Vanderbilt University (B.A., 2002); Vanderbilt
University Law School (J.D., 2005). Member: Nashville, Tennessee, and American Bar Associations. Practice
Areas: Civil Litigation; Labor and Employment; ERISA; Class Actions and Complex Litigation.
Stacey K. Skillman, (Associate) born Danville, Illinois, October 21, 1970; admitted to bar, 2003, Kentucky, 2009,
Tennessee, 2009, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee. Education: Eastern Kentucky University
(B.S., 1992); University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law (J.D., 2002). Member: Nashville,
Tennessee, Kentucky, and American Bar Associations. Practice Areas: Civil Litigation; Labor and Employment;
Estate Administration.
Robert E. Richardson, Jr., (Of Counsel) born Cincinnati, Ohio, November 25, 1978; admitted to bar, Ohio;
Education: University of Cincinnati (BSE) University of Cincinnati (J.D.) Member: Ohio Bar Association,
Cincinnati Branch of the NAACP, the Cincinnati Park Board, the Hamilton Democratic Executive Board, and the
Lawyers Coordinating Committee for the AFL-CIO and the Board of Trustees of the University of Cincinnati.
Practice Areas: Labor and Employment, Products Liability Litigation, and General Litigation.
Significant Cases
3
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC has been involved and is involved in a number of class actions,
shareholder derivative, securities, and other complex cases both in Tennessee courts and federal courts throughout
the nation. The firm’s efforts have produced significant monetary recovery and/or benefits for plaintiffs from many
jurisdictions. While the firm has also defended numerous such actions, the following is a list of notable complex
litigation cases that the firm is currently prosecuting, or has prosecuted to a successful conclusion:
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE CASES

Carolinas Electrical Workers Retirement Fund v. Kramer et al., Civ. No. H-01-1176 (S. D. TX). Co-lead
counsel in a shareholder derivative suit brought on behalf of American General Corporation alleging that the
then directors of the corporation breached its then fiduciary duties in connection with a purposed merger with
Prudential Insurance Company. The case was successfully resolved when the merger was cancelled. American
General later merged with AIG.

Holle v. Prison Realty, Inc., Case No. 99-1719-III, (Davidson County Chancery)(Chancellor Lyle). Shareholder
class action on behalf of shareholders of Prison Realty Trust against its board of directors for breaches of
fiduciary duties and self-dealings. Settlement was reached in conjunction with a global settlement of a securities
case in federal court.

Brand et al. v. Welch et al., Case No. 00C-3066 (Davidson County Circuit) (Judge Gayden). Counsel in a
shareholder action alleging breachs of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger between Quorum
Corporation and Triad. A settlement was reached in which shareholders received greater value for their stock
than offered in the original merger.

Dollar General Derivative Litigation (Dixon et al v. Turner, et al), Case No. 01C-1322 (Davidson County
Circuit, Tennessee) (Judge Shipley). Lead counsel in a shareholder derivative action against directors of Dollar
General Corporation alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and
gross mismanagement. Settlement of the case included $31.5 million cash payment to the corporation and
significant corporate governance changes. The settlement is the largest derivative settlement in Tennessee
history.

Benkler v. Miller et al., Case No. 00C-2630 (Davidson County, Tennessee) (Judge Soloman). Counsel in a
shareholder derivative action against directors of Sirrom Capital Corporation alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with merger between Sirrom Capital Corporation and Finova Financial. A global
settlement was reached in conjunction with securities cases that were filed or transferred to Arizona.

Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Chellegren, Civ. No. 02-CI-02174 (Kenton Circuit, Kentucky). Settlement in
a shareholder derivative action against the Board of Directors and certain officers at Ashland, Inc. relating to
accounting practices which harmed the company. The settlement resulted with a cash payment and significant
corporate governance changes.

Clayton Homes Derivative Litigation, Case No. E-19723 (Blount Circuit, Tennessee) (Young). Lead counsel in
a shareholder derivative action originally against the Board of Directors and certain officers at Clayton Homes
for breaches of fiduciary duties and corporate waste. During the litigation, Clayton Homes was purchased by
Berkshire Hathaway. Settlement was reached with shareholders obtaining for money for their shares of Clayton
4
Homes in the purchase

National Commerce Financial Shareholder Litigation, CT-002672-04 (Shelby Circuit, Tennessee). Counsel in a
shareholder action contesting the value of National Commerce stock in its merger with SunTrust. Settlement
was reached.

Accredo Health Derivative Ligation, Case No. CT-002203-03 (Shelby Circuit, Tennessee) (Judge Fields). Colead counsel in a shareholder derivative action against the Board of Directors and certain officers at Accredo
Health alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets. Accredo
merged during the litigation. A settlement is pending.

Provident Financial Derivative Litigation, No. C-1-08-168 (S.D. Ohio). Counsel in a shareholder derivative
action against the Board of Directors and certain officers at Provident Financial alleging various breaches of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets. Settlement was reached.

In re: Worldcom Securities Litigation, No. 03-27211 (Davidson Chancery, Tennessee) (Judge McCoy). Co-lead
counsel in a securities action by the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System against the banks that
underwrote Worldcom bonds during a period of time in which Worldcom was manipulating its accounting.
Settlement was reached that provided a recovery to the retirement system of $7 million.

In re: Unumprovident Derivative Litigation, No. 1:02CV-386 (E.D. Tenn.) (Judge Collier). Co-lead counsel in a
shareholder derivative action against the Board of Directors and certain officers of Unumprovident alleging
various breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets. A settlement of this case that
involves a payment of $30 million to the company plus significant corporate governance changes has received
preliminary approval by the court.

In re: AFC Enterprises Derivative Litigation, Civil No. 1:03-CV-2095TWT (N.D. Ga.) (Thrasher). One of three
lead counsel in a shareholder derivative action against the Board of Directors and certain officers at AFC
Enterprises alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets resulting
from improper accounting practices and insider trading. Settlement was reached which provided for corporate
governance changes.

In re: Dynegy, Inc., Derivative Litigation, Civil No. 2002-25250 (Harris County, Texas) (Jamison). Co-lead
counsel in a shareholder derivative action against the Board of Directors and certain officers at Dynegy, Inc.
alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets. Settlement was
reached with significant corporate changes and resignation of key corporate officers and certain directors.

In re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil. No. B0019077 (M) (Sullivan Chancery,
Tennessee) (Judge McLellan). Lead counsel in a shareholder derivative action against the Board of Directors
and certain officers at King Pharmaceuticals alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust
enrichment and waste of corporate assets. The parties settled the case for substantial and material revisions to
the Company’s corporate governance practices.
In re: Direct General Corporation Derivative Litigation, Civil No. 3:05-CV-00158 (M.D. Tenn.)(Campbell).
Co-lead counsel in litigation against the Board of Directors and certain officers of Direct General Corporation
alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty resulting from financial manipulations, insider selling, and

5
misconduct in connection with a proposed private-equity sale of the company. The parties ultimately reached a
settlement for additional material disclosures in the proxy materials and a substantial payment to shareholders if
the company is sold by the acquiring entity for more than the merger consideration within nine months of the
consummation of the private-equity sale.

In re: Caremark RX, Inc. Stock Option Litigation, Civil No. 06-C-1329 (Davidson County, Tennessee). Co-lead
counsel in litigation against the board of directors of Caremark RX, Inc. alleging breach of fiduciary duties
resulting from the Board’s attempt to merge the company with CVS Corporation, Inc. and extinguish their
liability for improperly backdating stock option grants to certain Board members and high-ranking officers at
the Company. A settlement was reached that provided for corporate governance reforms concerning the
granting of options, additional disclosures to voting shareholders prior to the merger vote, and recognition that
the case indirectly resulted in additional compensation to shareholders.

In re: HCA Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil No. 3:05-CV-0968 (Middle District of Tennessee)(J. Haynes).
Co-lead counsel representing shareholders of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Inc., alleging that the
company’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a private-equity buyout of the
company at an unfair price via an unfair process. A settlement was reached with provided for enhanced
appraisal rights for shareholders, reduced termination fee, a “majority of the minority” provision, and additional
material disclosures in the proxy materials.

Fisk v. Alfa Corporation, Civil No. 03-CV-2007-900485.00 (Montgomery County, Alabama). Co-lead counsel
representing shareholders of Alfa Corporation, alleging that the company’s board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in self-dealing and approving a sale of the company to private interests for grossly
inadequate consideration. A settlement was reached that resulted in an approximate additional $161 million
being paid to the shareholder class.
ERISA and Related Cases (401k, ESOP, Trust Law)

Ewing et al. v. Neuhoff, et al. (Law and Equity Court, Montgomery County, Tennessee) (Judge Boles). Lead
counsel in a class action that resulted in a successful jury verdict against directors of Frosty Morn, Inc. for
unlawful activities in running the corporation that directly impacted employee benefit plans. Employees
received 100% of their losses.

In re Providian Financial Corp. ERISA Litigation, No. C 01-5027 (N.D. C.A.) (Breyer). Co-lead counsel in a
401k/ESOP class action suit brought on behalf of the pension plan against fiduciaries of Providian Financial
Corp. for violation of duties owed under ERISA. Settlement reached that provided an $8.6 million cash
payment to the Plan for participants, lifted company stock sales restrictions in the Plan valued between $3.66
million and $5.85 million, and allowed the Plan to recover in a parallel securities action.

In re Montana Power ERISA Litigation, No. 4:02-0099 (D. Mont.) (Haddon). Co-lead counsel in a 401k/ESOP
class action suit brought on behalf of pension plan participants against fiduciaries of Montana Power, Touch
America and Northwestern Energy and against the Trustee, Northern Trust, for violation of duties owed under
ERISA.
6

In re Nortel Networks Corp. “ERISA” Litigation, No. 3:03-MD-1537 (M.D. Tenn.) (Nixon). Co-lead counsel in
a 401k/ESOP class action suit brought on behalf of pension plan participants against fiduciaries of Nortel
Network Corp. for violation of duties owed under ERISA. The litigation is currently in the discovery stage.

In re: Qwest Savings and Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No. 02-RB-464, (D. Colo.) (Blackburn). Co-lead
counsel in a 401k/ESOP class action suit brought on behalf of pension plan participants against fiduciaries at
Qwest Communications and the Trustee, Bankers Trust/Deutsche Bank, for violation of duties owed under
ERISA. A settlement was reached which provided a $33 million cash payment from Qwest Communications to
the Plan for participants, a $4.5 million cash payment from Bankers Trust/Deutsche Bank to the Plan for
participants, a $20 million guarantee from Qwest Communications from a parallel securities action with the
opportunity of more cash from the parallel securities action, and an undetermined amount of cash from a
distribution through the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Fair Fund established pursuant to Section
308 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. §§7201 et seq.

In re Global Crossing Ltd. ERISA Litigation, No. 02 Civ. 7453 (S.D. N.Y.) (Lynch). One of several counsel in
a 401k/ESOP class action suit brought on behalf of pension plan participants against fiduciaries at Global
Crossing for violation of duties owed under ERISA. Settlement reached that provided a $79 million cash
payment to the Plan for participants and allowed Plan to recover in parallel securities action.

In re Xcel Energy, Inc. ERISA Litigation Civ. 02-2677 (D. Minn.) (Doty). Co-lead counsel in a 401k/ESOP
class action suit brought on behalf of the pension plan against fiduciaries of Providian Financial Corp. for
violation of duties owed under ERISA. Settlement reached that provided an $8.6 million cash payment to the
Plan for participants, lifted stock restrictions in the Plan with a value between $38 million and $94 million, and
allowed the Plan to recover in parallel securities action.
FAIR TRADE PRACTICES/CONSUMER ACTIONS

Heilman et al. v. Perfection Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 99-0679-CD-W-6 (W.D. Missouri). The firm served on
Executive Committee in a nation-wide consumer class action composed of all persons throughout the United
States who owned or purchased a hot water heater manufactured by defendants with a defective dip tube.
Settlement reached involved 100% recovery of damages for a possible 14.2 million hot water heaters and any
other property damages caused by a defective hot water heater.

Drummond et al. v. C.E.C. Electrical Contractors, Inc., 98-1811-III (Davidson Chancery, Tennessee)
(Chancellor Lyle). Lead counsel in a class action settlement by employees against their employer for wages and
benefits due from a school construction contract between their employer and the Metropolitan-Davidson County
Board of Education. Settlement reached in which employees received 100% of their wages and benefits.

Cox v. Shell Oil et al., Civ. No. 18844 (Weakley Chancery, Tennessee)(Judge Malon). Intervened in consumer
class action composed of all persons throughout the United States, who owned or purchased polybutylene piping
systems used in residential constructions or mobile homes that were defective. A global settlement was reached
that resolved two competing lawsuits that was valued at $1 billion.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Health & Welfare Fund et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Case No. 00-C7
2524, (Davidson Circuit, Tennessee) (Judge Shipley). Lead counsel in action against Bristol-Myers alleging
violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Trades Practice Act and other theories
as a result of anti-competitive, unfair and deceptive acts and practices regarding Bristol-Myers’ marketing and
selling of the drug Taxol. A global settlement was reached in conjunction with a multi-state indirect companion
case in the District of Columbia.

In re: Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation Billing Practices Litigation, No. 3-98-MDL-1227 (M. D. Tenn.)
(Higgins). The firm served as liaison counsel in a multi-district litigation brought on behalf of all third-party
payers against Columbia Health Care Corporation/HCA Healthcare Corporation alleging over-billing for
services. Settlement was reached on a cash payment, modifications in billing documents and admission
practices.

Sherwood et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 99-C-3562 (Davidson Circuit, Tennessee) (Judge Kurtz). Lead
counsel in a consumer and indirect purchaser Tennessee class action against Microsoft Corporation alleging
violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Trades Act. Settlement was reached that
was valued at $64 million. The settlement included a $30 million cy pres to the Tennessee Commissioner of
Education.

Lankford v. Dow Chemical et al. No. 04-1517 (Davidson Circuit, Tennessee) (Judge Shipley). Lead counsel in
a consumer and indirect purchaser class action filed on behalf of Tennessee purchasers of products containing
neoprene against Dow Chemical Company, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC alleging
violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Trades Act. A multi-state settlement
was reached that was valued at $4.2 million, with a $2.93 million cy pres to the Vanderbilt Law School.

Davidson v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc and Ford Motor Co No. 00-C2298 (Davidson Circuit, Tennessee)
(Soloman/Brothers). Lead counsel in a consumer action filed on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers
against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc and Ford Motor Co. that was certified as a nationwide class action
concerning defective tires. Settlement was reached in conjunction with a companion case in Texas. Settlement
was valued at $34.4 million.
8
EXHIBIT 2
Dated: August 8, 2011
THE FIRM:
Berger & Montague has been engaged in the practice of complex and class action litigation from
its Center City Philadelphia office for 40 years. The firm has been recognized by courts
throughout the country for its ability and experience in handling major complex litigation,
particularly in the fields of securities, antitrust, mass torts, civil and human rights, qui tam and
whistleblower cases, employment, and consumer litigation. In numerous precedent-setting cases,
the Berger firm has played a principal or lead role. The firm has achieved the highest possible
rating by its peers and opponents as reported in Martindale-Hubbell. Currently, the firm consists
of 68 lawyers; 17 paralegals; a professional investigator; and an experienced support staff. Few
if any firms in the United States have our breadth of practice and match our successful track
record in such a broad array of complex litigation.
The National Law Journal has selected Berger & Montague in seven out of the last eight years
(2003-05, 2007-10) to its “Hot List” of top plaintiffs’ oriented litigation firms in the United
States with a history of high achievement and significant, groundbreaking cases. Normally 15 or
fewer firms are chosen for this honor. The Legal 500, a guide to worldwide legal services
providers, has repeatedly cited Berger & Montague’s antitrust practice as “stand[ing] out by
virtue of its first-class trial skills.” For four straight years, Berger & Montague has been selected
by Chambers and Partners’ USA’s America’s Leading Lawyers for Business as one of
Pennsylvania’s top antitrust firms. Chambers USA has specifically noted that Berger &
Montague “specializes in plaintiffs’ antitrust class actions, and is noted for its exceptional work
in pharmaceutical and financial disputes.” In 2009, Employment Law360º named Berger &
Montague as one of the top employment plaintiffs’ firms in the U.S. selecting only eight law
firms in the country for this honor. Also in 2009, The Public Justice Foundation bestowed its
prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year Award on the Berger & Montague trial team in the Rocky
Flats mass environmental tort class action for their “long and hard-fought” victory against
“formidable corporate and government defendants,” the second time Berger & Montague has
won this honor. The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are
continuing.
Berger & Montague was founded in 1970 by the late David Berger to concentrate on the
representation of plaintiffs in a series of antitrust class actions. David Berger helped pioneer the
use of class actions in antitrust litigation and was instrumental in extending the use of the class
action procedure to other litigation areas, including securities, employment discrimination, civil
and human rights, and mass torts. The firm’s complement of nationally recognized lawyers has
represented both plaintiffs and defendants in these and other areas, and has recovered billions of
dollars for its clients. In complex litigation, particularly in areas of class action litigation, Berger
& Montague has established new law and forged the path for recovery for victims of fraud and
other wrongdoing.
1
The firm has been involved in a series of notable cases, some of them among the most important
in the last 35 years of civil litigation. For example, the firm was one of the principal counsel for
plaintiffs in the Drexel Burnham Lambert/Michael Milken securities and bankruptcy litigation.
Claimants in these cases recovered approximately $2 billion in the aftermath of the collapse of
the junk bond market and the bankruptcy of Drexel in the late 1980’s. The firm was also among
the principal trial counsel in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill litigation in Anchorage, Alaska, a trial
resulting in a record jury award of $5 billion against Exxon, later reduced by U.S. Supreme
Court by $507.5 million. Berger & Montague was lead counsel in the School Asbestos
Litigation, in which a national class of secondary and elementary schools recovered in excess of
$300 million to defray the costs of asbestos abatement. The case was the first mass tort property
damage class action certified on a national basis. Berger & Montague was also lead/liaison
counsel in the Three Mile Island Litigation arising out of a serious nuclear incident.
In the area of securities litigation, the firm has represented public institutional investors - such as
the retirement funds for the States of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Louisiana and Ohio, as well as the City of Philadelphia and numerous individual investors and
private institutional investors. The firm was co-lead counsel in the Melridge Securities
Litigation in the Federal District Court in Oregon, in which an $88.2 million jury verdict was
obtained. Berger & Montague has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous other major
securities class action cases where substantial settlements were achieved on behalf of investors.
Examples of prominent settlements are: Merrill Lynch ($475 million), Rite Aid ($334 million),
Waste Management ($220 million), Sunbeam ($142 million), IKON ($111 million), Medaphis
($96 million), Fleming Companies ($94 million), Cigna ($93 million), Xcel Energy ($80
million), and Alcatel ($75 million).
Berger & Montague has served as lead or co-lead counsel in 10 of the 100 largest securities class
actions settled in the United States since the advent of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
In antitrust litigation, the firm has served as lead, co-lead or co-trial counsel on many of the most
significant civil antitrust cases over the last 30 years, including In re Corrugated Container
Antitrust Litigation (recovery in excess of $366 million), the Infant Formula case (recovery of
$125 million), and the Brand Name Prescription Drug price fixing case (settlement of more than
$700 million) and the State of Connecticut Tobacco Litigation (settlement of $3.6 billion). The
firm has also played a leading role in cases in the pharmaceutical arena, especially in cases
involving the delayed entry of generic or other rival drug competition, having achieved over $1
billion in settlements in such cases over the past decade. Additionally in the human rights area,
the firm, through its membership on the executive committee in the Holocaust Victim Assets
Litigation, helped to achieve a $1.25 billion settlement with the largest Swiss banks on behalf of
victims of Nazi aggression whose deposits were not returned after the Second World War. The
firm has also played an instrumental role in bringing about a $4.37 billion settlement with
German industry and government for the use of slave and forced labor during the Holocaust.
2
JUDICIAL PRAISE FOR BERGER & MONTAGUE ATTORNEYS
Berger & Montague’s record of successful prosecution of class actions and other complex
litigation has been recognized and commended by judges and arbitrators across the country.
Some remarks on the skill, efficiency, and expertise of the firm’s attorneys are excerpted below.
Securities Litigation
In In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
07-cv-9633(JSR)(DFE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York stated that lead plaintiff had made “very full and well-crafted”
and “excellent submissions”; that there was a “very fine job done by plaintiffs‟ counsel in this
case”; that the attorney fees requested were “eminently reasonable” and “appropriately modest”;
and that this was “surely a very good result under all the facts and circumstances.” Co-lead
counsel for the lead plaintiff and the class was Berger & Montague shareholder Lawrence J.
Lederer, who was assisted by a team of additional Berger & Montague attorneys including
Arthur Stock, Gary Cantor, Robin Switzenbaum and others.
From Chief Justice Steele and Justices Holland, Berger, Jacobs and Ridgely of the Delaware
Supreme Court sitting en banc:
Stating that the case was litigated, Chancellor [Chandler] went on to find that:
“All I can tell you, from someone who has only been doing this for roughly
22 years, is that I have yet to see a more fiercely and intensely litigated case than
this case. Never in 22 years have I seen counsel going at it, hammer and tong,
like they have gone at it in this case. And I think that’s a testimony -Mr. Valihura correctly says that’s what they are supposed to do. I recognize that;
that is their job, and they were doing it professionally.”
Regarding the work of Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum in In re Matter of The
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 945 A.2d 1123, 1143-44 (Del. 2008).
From Chancellor William Chandler, III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware when awarding
counsel’s fee observed:
“Counsel, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts in obtaining
this result for the class.”
Concerning Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum at the Plan of Allocation Approval
Hearing in Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., C.A. No. 2202 (Del. Ch.) on July 2,
2008.
3
From Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania:
“The Court is aware of and attests to the skill and efficiency of class counsel: they
have been diligent in every respect, and their briefs and arguments before the
Court were of the highest quality. The firm of Berger & Montague took the lead
in the Court proceedings; its attorneys were well prepared, articulate and
persuasive.”
Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys including Securities Department Chair
Sherrie R. Savett and shareholders Carole A. Broderick and Barbara A. Podell in In re CIGNA
Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51089, **17-18 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007).
From Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota:
“ [A] just result without the assistance of a governmental investigation,”
plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel Berger & Montague “conducted themselves in an
exemplary manner,” “consistently demonstrated considerable skill and
cooperation to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion,” and “moved the case
along expeditiously”.
Sherrie R. Savett in In re Xcel Energy Sec. Deriv. “ERISA” Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992,
995-96 (D. Minn. 2005).
From Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
“Thanks to the nimble class counsel, this sum, which once included securities
worth $149.5 million is now all cash. Seizing on an opportunity Rite Aid
presented, class counsel first renegotiated what had been stock consideration into
Rite Aid Notes and then this year monetized those Notes. Thus, on February 11,
2003, Rite Aid redeemed those Notes from the class, which then received
$145,754,922.00. The class also received $14,435,104 in interest on the Notes.
“Co-lead counsel ... here were extraordinarily deft and efficient in handling this
most complex matter... they were at least eighteen months ahead of the United
States Department of Justice in ferreting out the conduct that ultimately resulted
in the write down of over $1.6 billion in previously reported Rite Aid earnings. In
short, it would be hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here.”
4
Sherrie R. Savett and shareholders Carole Broderick and Robin Switzenbaum in In re Rite Aid
Corp. Securities Litigation, 269 F. Supp. 2d 603, 605 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
From Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania:
“...[C]ounsel has conducted this litigation with skill, professionalism and
extraordinary efficiency.”
Praising the work of Sherrie R. Savett, Securities Department Chair, and Arthur Stock in In Re:
Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 99-5333 , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
20160 at *10 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2001).
“As to ‘the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved,’ we can only echo what
we said about some of the same lawyers in U.S. Bioscience. The results here are
outstanding in a litigation that was far ahead of public agencies like the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice. . . . At
the same time, these attorneys have, through the division of their labors,
represented the class most efficiently[.]”
Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys including Securities Department Chair,
Sherrie R. Savett, in achieving settlements of over $190 million in In re Rite Aid Inc. Securities
Litigation, 146 F. Supp.2d 706, 735 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2001).
From Judge Marvin Katz of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
“Class counsel did a remarkable job in representing the class interests.”
Commenting on the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Merrill G. Davidoff, Todd S. Collins
and Douglas M. Risen, on the partial settlement for $111 million approved May, 2000, In Re:
IKON Office Solutions Securities Litigation, 194 F.R.D. 166, 197 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
5
From Judge Wayne R. Andersen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
“...[Y]ou have acted the way lawyers at their best ought to act. And I have had a
lot of cases...in 15 years now as a judge and I cannot recall a significant case
where I felt people were better represented than they are here ... I would say this
has been the best representation that I have seen.”
Praising the work of Sherrie R. Savett , Carole A. Broderick, and Gary E. Cantor at a hearing in
In Re: Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 97-C 7709 (N.D. Ill.
1999).
From Judge Helen J. Frye, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon:
In order to bring about this result [partial settlements then totaling $54.25
million], Class Counsel were required to devote an unusual amount of time and
effort over more than eight years of intense legal litigation which included a fourmonth long jury trial and full briefing and argument of an appeal before the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and which produced one of the most voluminous case
files in the history of this District.
* * *
Throughout the course of their representation, the attorneys at Berger &
Montague and Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Shlachter who have worked on this
case have exhibited an unusual degree of skill and diligence, and have had to
contend with opposing counsel who also displayed unusual skill and diligence.
Commenting, inter alia, on lead counsel, lead trial counsel and lead appellate counsel Merrill G.
Davidoff in awarding fees on April 15, 1996 in In Re Melridge, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
CV 87-1426-FR (D. Ore.).
“The quality of lawyering on both sides, but I am going to stress now on the
plaintiffs’ side, simply has not been exceeded in any case, and we have had some
marvelous counsel appear before us and make superb arguments, but they really
don’t come any better than Mrs. Savett . . . , and the arguments we had on the
motion to dismiss [Mrs. Savett argued the motion], both sides were fabulous, but
plaintiffs’ counsel were as good as they come.”
6
Commenting on the settlement of a securities case litigated by Sherrie R. Savett and Carole A.
Broderick, In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 92-0678, hearing held
April 4, 1994 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
From Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina:
“I don’t have a problem at all approving the settlement. In light of what you’ve
said today and your submission to the Court and I am familiar with the case ... it
was a sharply litigated case, with good lawyers on both sides and I think it’s an
ideal case for settlement. It’s the largest settlement I’ve been called upon to
approve in my eight years as a judge.”
Praising the work of Sherrie R. Savett, Securities Department Chair in achieving a $32 million
settlement in In Re: Policy Management Systems Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:93-0807-17
(D.S.C. 1993).
From Judge Harry R. McCue of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:
“There can be no doubt that the public good was fully served by the attorneys for
the plaintiffs in this case, because they invested their own time, their own money,
they invested their special skills and knowledge to vindicate the rights and
interests of the thousands of investors who invested their money and placed their
trust in the integrity of the securities market. . . . I conclude that the achievement
of plaintiffs’ counsel under any of those tests was superior. “
Concerning the work of lead attorney Sherrie R. Savett in achieving a $33 million settlement in
In re Oak Industries Securities Litigation, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20942 (S.D. Cal. 1986).
From Judge John F. Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
“The quality of work of plaintiffs’ counsel on this case is also demonstrated by
the efficient manner of prosecution. . . . At the settlement hearing, defense counsel
conceded that plaintiffs’ counsel constitute the ‘cream of the plaintiffs’ bar.’ The
court cannot find fault with that characterization.”
Regarding the work of Sherrie R. Savett in In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation,
618 F. Supp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
7
Antitrust Litigation
From Judge William H. Pauley, III of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New
York:
“Class Counsel did their work on their own with enormous attention to detail and
unflagging devotion to the cause. Many of the issues in this litigation . . . were
unique and issues of first impression.”
* * *
“Class Counsel provided extraordinarily high-quality representation. This case
raised a number of unique and complex legal issues . . . The law firms of Berger
& Montague and [another firm] were indefatigable. They represented the Class
with a high degree of professionalism, and vigorously litigated every issue against
some of the ablest lawyers in the antitrust defense bar.”
Regarding the work of Berger & Montague shareholders Merrill G. Davidoff and Ruthanne
Gordon in In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1409, M21-95, slip
op. at 33-34 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2009)
From Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
“The stakes were high here, with the result that most matters of consequence were
contested. There were numerous trips to the courthouse, and the path to the trial
court and the Court of Appeals frequently traveled. The efforts of counsel for the
class has [sic] produced a substantial recovery, and it is represented that the cash
settlement alone is the second largest in the history of class action litigation. . . .
There is no question that the results achieved by class counsel were
extraordinary[.]”
Regarding the work of Berger & Montague shareholders H. Laddie Montague and Peter R.
Kahana, among others, in achieving a more than $700 million settlement with some of the
defendants in In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 1734 at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2000).
From Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:
“The experience and ability of the attorneys I have mentioned earlier, in my view
in reviewing the documents, which I have no reason to doubt, the plaintiffs’
counsel are at the top of the profession in this regard and certainly have used their
8
expertise to craft an extremely favorable settlement for their clients, and to that
extent they deserve to be rewarded.”
Concerning the work of senior member, Merrill G. Davidoff, as stated in a Settlement Approval
Hearing, Oct. 28, 1994. Spawd, Inc. and General Generics v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.,
CA No. PJM-92-3624 (D. Md.).
From Judge Donald W. Van Artsdalen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania:
“As to the quality of the work performed, although that would normally be
reflected in the not immodest hourly rates of all attorneys, for which one would
expect to obtain excellent quality work at all times, the results of the settlements
speak for themselves. Despite the extreme uncertainties of trial, plaintiffs’ counsel
were able to negotiate a cash settlement of a not insubstantial sum, and in
addition, by way of equitable relief, substantial concessions by the defendants
which, subject to various condition, will afford the right, at least, to lessee-dealers
to obtain gasoline supply product from major oil companies and suppliers other
than from their respective lessors. The additional benefits obtained for the classes
by way of equitable relief would, in and of itself, justify some upward adjustment
of the lodestar figure.”
Commending the skills of firm then chairman David Berger, shareholder Martin Twersky, and
other Berger & Montague attorneys, in Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27, 31 (E.D.
Pa. 1985).
From Judge Joseph Blumenfeld of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut:
“The work of the Berger firm showed a high degree of efficiency and
imagination, particularly in the maintenance and management of the national class
actions.”
Referencing the leadership of managing partner H. Laddie Montague, co-lead counsel, in In re
Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12948 at *34-35 (Nov. 4, 1977).
Civil/Human Rights Cases
From Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart E. Eizenstat:
“We must be frank. It was the American lawyers, through the lawsuits they
brought in U.S. courts, who placed the long-forgotten wrongs by German
companies during the Nazi era on the international agenda. It was their research
9
and their work which highlighted these old injustices and forced us to confront
them. Without question, we would not be here without them. . . . For this
dedication and commitment to the victims, we should always be grateful to these
lawyers.”
In his remarks at the July 17, 2000, signing ceremony for the international agreements which
established the German Foundation to act as a funding vehicle for the payment of claims to
Holocaust survivors.
Insurance Litigation
From Judge Janet C. Hall, of the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut:
Noting the “very significant risk in pursuing this action” given its uniqueness in
that “there was no prior investigation to rely on in establishing the facts or a legal
basis for the case….[and] no other prior or even now similar case involving
parties like these plaintiffs and a party like these defendants.” Further, “the quality
of the representation provided to the plaintiffs . . . in this case has been
consistently excellent…. [T]he defendant[s] . . . mounted throughout the course of
the five years the case pended, an extremely vigorous defense…. [B]ut for
counsel’s outstanding work in this case and substantial effort over five years, no
member of the class would have recovered a penny…. [I]t was an extremely
complex and substantial class . . . case . . . [with an] outstanding result.”
Regarding the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Peter R. Kahana and Steven L. Bloch,
among other co-class counsel, in Spencer, et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
et al., in the Order approving the $72.5 million final settlement of this action, dated
September 21, 2010 (USDC, D. Conn., Case Number 3:05-cv-1681).
Customer/Broker Arbitrations
From Robert E. Conner, Public Arbitrator with the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc.:
“. . . [H]aving participated over the last 17 years in 400 arbitrations and trials in
various settings, . . . the professionalism and the detail and generally the civility of
everyone involved has been not just a cause for commentary at the end of these
proceedings but between ourselves [the arbitration panel] during the course of
them, and . . . the detail and the intellectual rigor that went into the documents
was fully reflective of the effort that was made in general. I wanted to make that
known to everyone and to express my particular respect and admiration.”
10
About the efforts of Berger & Montague shareholders Merrill G. Davidoff and Eric L. Cramer,
who achieved a $1.1 million award for their client, in Steinman v. LMP Hedge Fund, et al.,
NASD Case No. 98-04152, at Closing Argument, June 13, 2000.
Other
From Stephen M. Feiler, Ph.D., Director of Judicial Education, Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Mechanicsburg, PA on behalf of
the Common Pleas Court Judges (trial judges) of Pennsylvania:
“On behalf of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and AOPC’s Judicial Education
Department, thank you for your extraordinary commitment to the Dealing with
Complexities in Civil Litigation symposia. We appreciate the considerable time
you spent preparing and delivering this important course across the state. It is no
surprise to me that the judges rated this among the best programs they have
attended in recent years.”
About the efforts of Berger & Montague attorneys Merrill G. Davidoff, Peter Nordberg and
David F. Sorensen in planning and presenting a CLE Program to trial judges in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
11
PROMINENT JUDGMENTS AND SETTLEMENTS
The firm has a wide breadth of achievement in many significant areas of complex and businessrelated litigation. The following is a partial list of some of the more notable judgments and
settlements from the past few years. For ease of reference, the specific litigation areas can be
found as follows:
Individual Securities Action
Environmental/Mass Tort Litigation
Employee Benefits/ERISA Litigation
Civil/Human Rights Litigation
Consumer Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Employment Litigation
Other Individual Litigation
Pages 12-15
Page 15
Pages 15-18
Pages 18-19
Page 19
Pages 19-20
Pages 20-22
Pages 22-23
Pages 23-24
Pages 24-25
Page 25
In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation: Berger & Montague, as co-lead counsel, obtained a
recovery of $475 million in 2009 for the benefit of the class in one of the largest recoveries
among the recent financial crisis cases. (Civil Action No. 07-CV-09633 (S.D.N.Y.)).
In re Sotheby’s Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as lead counsel obtained a $70
million settlement, of which $30 million was contributed, personally, by an individual defendant
(No. 00 Civ. 1041 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.)).
In re KLA Tencor Securities Litigation: The firm, as a member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s
Executive Committee, obtained a cash settlement of $65 million in 2009 in an action on behalf of
investors against KLA-Tencor and certain of its officers and directors. (No. 06-cv-04065 (N.D.
Cal.)).
Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.:
The firm represented certain
shareholders of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
2008, obtained a settlement valued in excess of $99 million settlement. (C.A. No. 2202-CC
(Del. Ch.)).
In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of
$52.5 million for the benefit of bond and stock purchaser classes. (Civil Action No. 02-12235MEL (D. Mass.)).
12
In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of
$93 million for the benefit of the class. (Master File No. 2:02-CV-8088 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Fleming Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as lead counsel, obtained a
class settlement of $94 million for the benefit of the class. (Civil Action No. 5-03-MD-1530
(TJW) (E.D. Tex.)).
In re Xcel Energy Inc. Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation: The firm, as co-lead
counsel in the securities actions, obtained a cash settlement of $80 million on behalf of investors
against Xcel Energy and certain of its officers and directors. (Civil Action No. 02-2677
(DSD/FLN) (D. Minn.)).
Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S.A. Inc.: The firm represented lead plaintiffs as co-lead counsel and
obtained $29.25 million cash settlement and an additional $6,528,371 in dividends for a gross
settlement value of $35,778,371. (No. 02-CV-0605 (D. Nev.))
In re Campbell Soup Co. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a
settlement of $35 million for the benefit of the class. (Civil Action No. 00 152 (JEI) (D.N.J.)).
In re Premiere Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained
a class settlement of over $20 million in combination of cash and common stock. (Civil Action
No.1:98-CV-1804-JOF (N.D. Ga.)).
In re: PSINet, Inc., Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of
$17.83 million on behalf of investors. (Civ. No. 00-1850-A (E.D. Va.)).
In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Securities Litigation : The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class
settlement in the amount of $45 million against Safety-Kleen’s outside accounting firm and
certain of the Company’s officers and directors. The final settlement was obtained 2 business
days before the trial was to commence. (C.A. No. 3:00-CV-736-17 (D.S.C.)).
Emil Rossdeutscher and Dennis Kelly v. Viacom: The firm, as lead counsel, obtained a
settlement resulting in a fund of $14.25 million for the class. (C.A. No. 98C-03-091 (JEB) (Del.
Super. Ct.)).
Aldridge v. A.T. Cross Corp.: The firm represented a class of investors in a securities fraud
class action against the A.T. Cross , and won a significant victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit when that Court reversed the dismissal of the complaint and lessened the
pleading standard for such cases in the First Circuit, holding that it would not require plaintiffs in
a shareholder suit to submit proof of financial restatement in order to prove revenue inflation.
See Aldridge v. A.T. Cross Corp., 284 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2002). The case ultimately settled for
$1.5 million. (Civil Action 00203 ML (D.R.I.)).
13
Silver v. UICI: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement resulting in a fund of $16
million for the class. (No. 3:99 CV 2860-L (N.D. Tex.)).
In re Alcatel Alsthom Securities Litigation: In 2001, the firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a
class settlement for investors of $75 million cash. (MDL Docket No. 1263 (PNB) (E.D. Tex.)).
In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained settlements
totaling $334 million against Rite Aid’s outside accounting firm and certain of the company’s
former officers. (99 CV 1349 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Sunbeam Inc. Securities Litigation: As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a settlement on
behalf of investors of $141 million in the action against Sunbeam’s outside accounting firm and
Sunbeam’s officers. (98 CV 8258 (S.D. Fla.)).
In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation: In 1999, the firm, as co-lead counsel,
obtained a class settlement for investors of $220 million cash which included a settlement against
Waste Management’s outside accountants. (97 CV 7709 (N.D. Ill.)).
In re IKON Office Solutions Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, serving as both co-lead and
liaison counsel, obtained a cash settlement of $111 million in an action on behalf of investors
against IKON and certain of its officers. (MDL Dkt. No. 1318 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Melridge Securities Litigation: The firm served as lead counsel and co-trial counsel for a
class of purchasers of Melridge common stock and convertible debentures. A four-month jury
trial yielded a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor for $88.2 million, and judgment was entered on RICO
claims against certain defendants for $239 million. The court approved settlements totaling $55.4
million. (CV-87-1426 FR (D. Ore.)).
Walco Investments, Inc. et al. v. Kenneth Thenen, et al. (Premium Sales): The firm, as a
member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee, obtained settlements of $141 million for investors
victimized by a Ponzi scheme. Reported at: 881 F. Supp. 1576 (S.D. Fla. 1995); 168 F.R.D. 315
(S.D. Fla. 1996); 947 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Fla. 1996)).
In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.: The firm was appointed co-counsel for a
mandatory non-opt-out class consisting of all claimants who had filed billions of dollars in
securities litigation-related proofs of claim against The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.
and/or its subsidiaries. Settlements in excess of $2.0 billion were approved in August 1991 and
became effective upon consummation of Drexel’s Plan of Reorganization on April 30, 1992. (90
Civ. 6954 (MP), Chapter 11, Case No. 90 B 10421 (FGC), Jointly Administered, reported at,
inter alia, 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 1088 (1993) (“Drexel I”) and
995 F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Drexel II”)).
In re Michael Milken and Associates Securities Litigation: As court-appointed liaison counsel,
the firm was one of four lead counsel who structured the $1.3 billion “global” settlement of all
14
claims pending against Michael R. Milken, over 200 present and former officers and directors of
Drexel Burnham Lambert, and more than 350 Drexel/Milken-related entities. (MDL Dkt. No.
924, M21-62-MP (S.D.N.Y.).
RJR Nabisco Securities Litigation: In this action, Berger & Montague represented individuals
who sold RJR Nabisco securities prior to the announcement of a corporate change of control.
This securities case settled for $72 million. (88 Civ. 7905 MBM (S.D.N.Y.)).
Individual Securities Actions
New Jersey v. Qwest Communications International: The Berger firm represented the pension
funds for public employees in the State of New Jersey seeking to recover losses on their
investments in Qwest common stock. The action settled for $45 million. (MER-L-3738-02 (N.J.
Super. Ct., Mercer Cty.)).
Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Time Warner, Inc., et al.:
The Berger firm represented a group of pension funds seeking to recover for losses on their
investments in AOL/Time Warner common stock. The case settled for $23 million. (July 2003,
No. 002103 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Phila. Cty.)).
Kelly v. McKesson HBOC, Inc.: The Berger firm represented a group of private shareholders
who sold their companies to a large publicly-held corporation in exchange for $103.5 million in
stock. The case settled for a confidential sum on the eve of trial for a percentage of plaintiffs’
damages far greater than plaintiffs would have received from a related class action. (C.A. No.
99C-09-265WCC (Del. Super. Ct.)).
Forbes v. GMH: The Berger firm represented a private real estate developer/investor who sold a
valuable apartment complex to GMH for cash and publicly-held securities. The case settled for a
confidential sum which represented a significant portion of the losses experienced. (C.A. No. 07cv-00979 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague spearheaded a class
action lawsuit alleging that the major credit cards had conspired to fix prices for foreign currency
conversion fees imposed on credit card transactions. After eight years of litigation, a settlement
of $336 million was finally approved in October 2009. (MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y)).
In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of three colead counsel in this nationwide class action alleging a conspiracy to allocate volumes and
customers and to price-fix among five producers of high fructose corn syrup. After nine years of
litigation, including four appeals, the case was settled on the eve of trial for $531 million.
(MDL. No. 1087, Master File No. 95-1477 (C.D. Ill.)).
15
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of courtappointed executive committee members who led this nationwide class action against producers
of linerboard. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to reduce production of
linerboard in order to increase the price of linerboard and corrugated boxes made therefrom. At
the close of discovery, the case was settled for more than $200 million. (98 Civ. 5055 and 991341 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Terazosin Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms
alleging that Abbott Laboratories was paying its competitors to refrain from introducing less
expensive generic versions of Hytrin. The case settled for a $74.5 million settlement. (Case No.
99-MDL-1317 (S.D. Fla.)).
In re Remeron Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms
alleging that the manufacturer of this drug was paying its competitors to refrain from introducing
less expensive generic versions of Remeron. The case settled for a $75 million settlement.
(2:02-CV-02007-FSH (D. N.J.).
In re Tricor Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms
alleging that the manufacturer of this drug was paying its competitors to refrain from introducing
less expensive generic versions of Tricor. The case settled for a $250 million settlement. (No.
05-340 (D. Del.)).
In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms who
prepared for the trial of this nationwide class action against GlaxoSmithKline, which was alleged
to have used fraudulently-procured patents to block competitors from marketing less-expensive
generic versions of its popular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Relafen (nabumetone). Just
before trial, the case was settled for $175 million. (No. 01-12239-WGY (D. Mass.)).
In re Microcrystalline Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of two co-lead counsel
in this class action alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of microcrystalline cellulose, used in the
manufacture of many pharmaceuticals. The case was settled shortly before trial for a total of $50
million. (MDL No. 1402 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of the four co-lead
counsel in a nationwide class action price-fixing case. The case eventually settled in excess of
$130 million. (02 Civ. 99-482 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation: The firm served on the court-appointed steering
committee in this class action, representing a class of primarily pharmaceutical wholesalers and
resellers. The Buspirone class action alleged that pharmaceutical manufacturer BMS engaged in
a pattern of illegal conduct surrounding its popular anti-anxiety medication, Buspar, namely,
paying a competitor to refrain from marketing a generic version of Buspar; improperly listing a
patent with the FDA; and wrongfully prosecuting patent infringement actions against generic
16
competitors to Buspar. On April 11, 2003, the Court finally approved a $220 million settlement.
(MDL No. 1410 (S.D.N.Y.)).
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague served on the Executive
Committee of firms appointed to represent the class of direct purchasers of Cardizem CD. The
suit charged that Aventis (the brand-name drug manufacturer of Cardizem CD) entered into an
illegal agreement to pay Andrx (the maker of a generic substitute to Cardizem CD) millions of
dollars to delay the entry of the less expensive generic product. On November 26, 2002, the
district court approved a final settlement against both defendants for $110 million. (No. 99-MD1278, MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich.)).
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel
in this antitrust price-fixing class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of brand name
prescription drugs. Following certification of the class by the district court, settlements exceeded
$717 million. (No. 94 C 897 (M.D. Ill.)).
North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.: The firm was
one of several prosecuting an action complaining of Bristol Myers’s use of invalid patents to
block competitors from marketing more affordable generic versions of its life-saving cancer
drug, Platinol (cisplatin). The case settled for $50 million. (No. 1:04CV248 (EGS) (D.D.C.)).
In re Catfish Antitrust Litig. Action: The firm was co-trial counsel in this action which settled
with the last defendant a week before trial, for total settlements approximating $27 million. (No.
2:92CV073-D-O, MDL No. 928 (N.D. Miss.)).
In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation: The firm was co-trial counsel in this antitrust class
action which settled with the last defendant days prior to trial for total settlements approximating
$53 million, plus injunctive relief. (MDL No. 940 (M.D. Fla.)).
In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in an antitrust
class action where settlement was achieved two days prior to trial, bringing the total settlement
proceeds to $125 million. (MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.)).
Red Eagle Resources Corp., Inc., v. Baker Hughes, Inc.: The firm was a member of the
plaintiffs’ executive committee in this antitrust class action which yielded a settlement of $52.5
million. (C.A. No. H-91-627 (S.D. Tex.)).
In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation: The firm, led by H. Laddie Montague, was
co-trial counsel in an antitrust class action which yielded a settlement of $366 million, plus
interest, following a trial. (MDL No. 310 (S.D. Tex.)).
Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.: With Berger & Montague as sole lead counsel, this landmark
action on behalf of a national class of more than 100,000 gasoline dealers against 13 major oil
17
companies led to settlements of over $35 million plus equitable relief on the eve of trial. (No.
71-1137 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in an antitrust class
action that yielded a settlement of $21 million during trial. (MDL No. 45 (D. Conn.)).
Environmental/Mass Tort Litigation
Cook v. Rockwell International Corporation: In February 2006, the firm won a $554 million
jury verdict on behalf of thousands of property owners whose homes were exposed to plutonium
or other toxins. Judgment in the case was entered by the court in June 2008 which, with interest,
totaled $926 million (with proceedings now continuing on appeal). Recognizing this tremendous
achievement, the Public Justice Foundation bestowed its prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year
Award for 2009 on Mr. Davidoff, Mr. Sorensen and the entire trial team for their “long and hardfought” victory against “formidable corporate and government defendants.” (No. 90-cv-00181JLK (D. Colo.)). The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are
continuing.
In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation: On September 16, 1994, a jury trial of several months
duration resulted in a record punitive damages award of $5 billion against the Exxon defendants
as a consequence of one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history. The award was reduced to
$507.5 million pursuant to a Supreme Court decision. David Berger was co-chair of the
plaintiffs’ discovery committee (appointed by both the federal and state courts). Harold Berger
served as a member of the organizing case management committee. H. Laddie Montague was
specifically appointed by the federal court as one of the four designated trial counsel. Both
Mr. Montague and Peter Kahana shared (with the entire trial team) the 1995 “Trial Lawyer of the
Year Award” given by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. (No. A89-0095-CVCHRH (D.
Alaska)).
In re Ashland Oil Spill Litigation: The firm led by Harold Berger served as co-lead counsel and
obtained a $30 million settlement for damages resulting from a very large oil spill. (Master File
No. M-14670 (W.D. Pa.)).
State of Connecticut Tobacco Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of three firms to
represent the State of Connecticut in a separate action in state court against the tobacco
companies. The case was litigated separate from the coordinated nationwide actions. Although
eventually Connecticut joined the national settlement, its counsel’s contributions were
recognized by being awarded the fifth largest award among the states from the fifty states’
Strategic Contribution Fund.
In re School Asbestos Litigation: As co-lead counsel, the firm successfully litigated a case in
which a nationwide class of elementary and secondary schools and school districts suffering
property damage as a result of asbestos in their buildings were provided relief. Pursuant to an
18
approved settlement, the class received in excess of $70 million in cash and $145 million in
discounts toward replacement building materials. (No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.)).
Drayton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.: The firm served as counsel in a consolidation of wrongful
death and other catastrophic injury cases brought against two manufacturers of turkey products,
arising out of a 2002 outbreak of Listeria Monocytogenes in the Northeastern United States,
which resulted in the recall of over 32 million pounds of turkey – the second largest meat recall
in U.S. history at that time. A significant opinion issued in the case is Drayton v. Pilgrim’s Pride
Corp., 472 F.Supp.2d 638 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (denying the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment and applying the alternative liability doctrine). All of the cases settled on confidential
terms in 2006. (No. 03-2334 (E.D. Pa.)).
In re SEPTA 30th Street Subway/Elevated Crash Class Action: Berger & Montague
represented a class of 220 persons asserting injury in a subway crash. Despite a statutory cap of
$1 million on damages recovery from the public carrier, and despite a finding of sole fault of the
public carrier in the investigation by the National Highway Transit Safety Administration,
Berger & Montague was able to recover an aggregate of $3.03 million for the class. (1990
Master File No. 0001 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pls., Phila. Cty.)).
In re Three Mile Island Litigation: As lead/liaison counsel, the firm successfully litigated the
case and reached a settlement in 1981 of $25 million in favor of individuals, corporations and
other entities suffering property damage as a result of the nuclear incident involved. (C.A. No.
79-0432 (M.D. Pa.)).
Employee Benefits /ERISA Litigation
In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits: The firm, as co-lead counsel, handled the
presentation of over 70 witnesses, 30 depositions, and over 700 trial exhibits in this action that
has resulted in partial settlements in 1990 of over $110 million for retirees whose health benefits
were terminated. (MDL No. 969 (E.D. Pa.)).
Local 56 U.F.C.W. v. Campbell Soup Co.: The firm represented a class of retired Campbell
Soup employees in an ERISA class action to preserve and restore retiree medical benefits. A
settlement yielded benefits to the class valued at $114.5 million. (No. 93-MC-276 (SSB)
(D.N.J.)).
Civil/Human Rights Litigation
In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation: Through membership on the executive committee in
cases brought by Holocaust survivors against the three largest Switzerland-based banks, this
litigation was settled for $1.25 billion. (105 F. Supp.2d 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)).
19
In re Nazi Era Cases Against German Defendants Litigation: Through the firm’s co-lead
counsel role, cases against German industry and banks for the use of slave and forced labor
during the Nazi era were ultimately settled in the context of international negotiations which
created a fund for victims of $4.5 billion. (198 F.R.D. 429 (D.N.J. 2000)).
Consumer Litigation
Countrywide Predatory Lending Enforcement Action: Berger & Montague advised the Ohio
Attorney General (and several other state attorneys general) regarding predatory lending in a
landmark law enforcement proceeding against Countrywide (and its parent, Bank of America)
culminating in 2008 in mortgage-related modifications and other relief for borrowers across the
country valued at some $8.6 billion.
In re Pet Foods Product Liability Litigation: The firm is one of plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel in
this multidistrict class action suit seeking to redress the harm resulting from the manufacture and
sale of contaminated dog and cat food. The case has been settled for $24 million. Many terms
of the settlement are unique and highly beneficial to the class, including allowing class members
to recover up to 100% of their economic damages without any limitation on the types of
economic damages they may recover. (1:07-cv-02867 (D.N.J.), MDL Docket No. 1850
(D.N.J.)). On December 16, 2010, the Third Circuit upheld the settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate in all respects except one. While the settlement establishes a cash fund of $24 million
to reimburse claims for all reasonable economic damages, the settlement limits claims for the
purchase price of recalled pet food (“Purchase Claims”) to an aggregate maximum of $250,000.
This means that if all Purchase Claims total more than $250,000, each Purchase Claim would be
reduced to its proportionate share of $250,000. The Appellate Court held that Judge Hillman
“lacked the information necessary to determine whether the $250,000 allocated to Purchase
Claims was fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The Appellate Court instructed Judge Hillman to
reconsider whether the $250,000 allocated to Purchase Claims was fair, reasonable, and adequate
and asked the settling parties to “either produce the relevant information or demonstrate that it is
unavailable or that producing it would be unfeasible.”
In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in
this multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of individuals whose personal and financial data
was compromised in the then-largest theft of personal data in history. The breach involved more
than 45 million credit and debit card numbers and 450,000 customers’ driver’s license numbers.
The case was settled for benefits valued at over $200 million. Class members whose driver’s
license numbers were at risk were entitled to 3 years of credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance (a value of $390 per person based on the retail cost for this service), reimbursement of
actual identity theft losses, and reimbursement of driver’s license replacement costs. Class
members whose credit and debit card numbers were at risk were entitled to cash of $15-$30 or
store vouchers of $30-$60. (No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY, (D. Mass.)).
20
In Re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation: The firm
served on the Executive Committee of this multidistrict litigation and obtained a settlement of
cash and injunctive relief for a class of 130 million credit card holders whose credit card
information was stolen by computer hackers. The breach was the largest known theft of credit
card information in history. The settlement is subject to court approval. (No. 4:09-MD-2046
(S.D. Tex. 2009)).
In re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation: The firm
served on the Executive Committee of this multidistrict litigation and obtained a settlement for a
class of 17 million individuals whose personal information was at risk when a rouge employee
sold their information to unauthorized third parties. Settlement benefits included: (i)
reimbursement of several categories of out-of-pocket costs; (ii) credit monitoring and identity
theft insurance for 2 years for consumers who did not accept Countrywide’s prior offer of credit
monitoring; and (iii) injunctive relief. The settlement is subject to court approval. (3:08-md01998-TBR (W.D. Ky. 2008)).
In re Educational Testing Service Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 7-12
Litigation: The firm served on the plaintiffs’ steering committee and obtained an $11.1 million
settlement in 2006 on behalf of persons who were incorrectly scored on a teacher’s licensing
exam. (MDL No. 1643 (E.D. La.)).
Vadino, et al. v. American Home Products Corporation, et al.: The firm filed a class complaint
different from that filed by any other of the filing firms in the New Jersey State Court “Fen
Phen” class action, and the class sought in the firm’s complaint was ultimately certified. It was
the only case anywhere in the country to include a claim for medical monitoring. In the midst of
trial, the New Jersey case was folded into a national settlement which occurred as the trial was
ongoing, and which was structured to include a medical monitoring component worth in excess
of $1 billion. (Case Code No. 240 (N.J. Super. Ct.)).
Parker v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.: The firm served as sole lead counsel and obtained a
settlement whereby class members recovered up to $500 each for economic damages resulting
from accidents caused by faulty brakes. (Sept. Term 2003, No. 3476 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Phila.
Cty.)).
In re: Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. ATX, ATX II and Wilderness Tires Products Liab. Litig.:
The firm filed a complaint that was later consolidated into the master multidistrict litigation
(MDL). Claims in the MDL were focused on: (1) products liability claims against
Bridgestone/Firestone for faulty tires; and (2) diminution in value (DIV) claims against Ford for
the falling value of Ford Explorers. B&M was one of three firms on the Discovery Committee.
After surviving in part the motion to dismiss, engaging in substantial discovery, and litigating the
motion for class certification, the case was settled on a non-class basis. (Master File No. 00-ml09374-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind.), MDL No. 1373).
21
Salvucci v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.: The firm served as colead counsel in litigation brought on behalf of a nationwide class alleging that defendants failed
to disclose that its vehicles contained defectively designed timing belt tensioners and associated
parts and that defendants misrepresented the appropriate service interval for replacement of the
timing belt tensioner system. After extensive discovery, a settlement was reached. (Docket No.
ATL-1461-03 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2007)).
Burgo v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.: The firm served as co-lead
counsel in litigation brought on behalf of a nationwide class against premised on defendants’
defective tires that were prone to bubbles and bulges. Counsel completed extensive discovery
and class certification briefing. A settlement was reached while the decision on class
certification was pending. The settlement consisted of remedies including total or partial
reimbursement for snow tires, free inspection/replacement of tires for those who experienced
sidewall bubbles, blisters, or bulges, and remedies for those class members who incurred other
costs related to the tires’ defects. (Docket No. HUD-L-2392-01 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2001)).
Crawford v. Philadelphia Hotel Operating Co.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and
obtained a settlement whereby persons who contracted food poisoning at a business convention
recovered $1,500 each. (March Term, 2004, No. 000070 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Phila. Cty.)).
Block v. McDonald’s Corporation: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a
settlement of $12.5 million with McDonald’s stemming from its failure to disclose the use of
beef fat in its french fries. (No. 01-CH-9137 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.)).
Commercial Litigation
Erie Power Technologies, Inc. v. Aalborg Industries A/S, et al.: Berger & Montague
represented a trustee in bankruptcy against officers and directors and the former corporate parent
and obtained a very favorable confidential settlement. (No. 04-282E (W.D. Pa.)).
Moglia v. Harris et al.: Berger & Montague represented a liquidating trustee against the officers
of U.S. Aggregates, Inc. and obtained a settlement of $4 million. (No. C 04 2663 (CW) (N.D.
Cal.)).
Gray v. Gessow et al.: The firm represented a litigation trust and brought two actions, one
against the officers and directors of Sunterra Inc. an insolvent company, and the second against
Sunterra’s accountants, Arthur Andersen and obtained an aggregate settlement of $4.5 million.
(Case No. MJG 02-CV-1853 (D. Md.) and No. 6:02-CV-633-ORL-28JGG (M.D. Fla.)).
Fitz, Inc. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co.: The firm served as sole lead counsel and obtained, after
7 years of litigation, in 2000 a settlement whereby fabricator class members could obtain full
recoveries for their losses resulting from defendants’ defective contact adhesives. (No. 1-94-CV06017 (D.N.J.)).
22
Provident American Corp. and Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Company v. The Loewen
Group Inc. and Loewen Group International Inc.: Berger & Montague settled this individual
claim, alleging a 10-year oral contract (despite six subsequent writings attempting to reduce
terms to writing, each with materially different terms added, all of which were not signed), for a
combined payment in cash and stock of the defendant, of $30 Million. (No. 92-1964 (E.D. Pa.)).
Marilou Whitney (Estate of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney) v. Turner/Time Warner: Berger &
Montague settled this individual claim for a confidential amount, seeking interpretation of the
distribution agreement for the movie, Gone with the Wind and undistributed profits for the years
1993-1997, with forward changes in accounting and distribution.
American Hotel Holdings Co., et. al v. Ocean Hospitalities, Inc., et. al.: Berger & Montague
defended against a claim for approximately $16 million and imposition of a constructive trust,
arising out of the purchase of the Latham Hotel in Philadelphia. Berger & Montague settled the
case for less than the cost of the trial that was avoided. (June Term, 1997, No. 2144 (Pa. Ct.
Com. Pl., Phila. Cty.))
Creative Dimensions and Management, Inc. v. Thomas Group, Inc.: Berger & Montague
defended this case against a claim for $30 million for breach of contract. The jury rendered a
verdict in favor of Berger & Montague’s client on the claim (i.e., $0), and a verdict for the full
amount of Berger & Montague’s client on the counterclaim against the plaintiff. (No. 96-6318
(E.D. Pa.)).
Robert S. Spencer, et al. v. The Arden Group, Inc., et al.: Berger & Montague represented an
owner of limited partnership interests in several commercial real estate partnerships in a lawsuit
against the partnerships’ general partner. The terms of the settlement are subject to a
confidentiality agreement. (Aug. Term, 2007, No. 02066 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Phila. Cty. Commerce Program)).
Employment Litigation
Employees Committed for Justice v. Eastman Kodak Company: The firm served as co-lead
counsel and obtained a settlement of $21.4 million on behalf of a nationwide class of African
American employees of Kodak alleging a pattern and practice of racial discrimination (pending
final approval). A significant opinion issued in the case is Employees Committed For Justice v.
Eastman Kodak Co., 407 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (denying Kodak’s motion to dismiss).
No. 6:04-cv-06098 (W.D.N.Y.)).
Salcido v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a
settlement of $7.5 million on behalf of a class of thousands of employees of Cargill Meat
Solutions Corp. alleging that they were forced to work off-the-clock and during their breaks.
This is one of the largest settlements of this type of case involving a single plant in U.S. history.
(Civil Action Nos. 1:07-cv-01347-LJO-GSA and 1:08-cv-00605-LJO-GSA (E.D. Cal.)).
23
Miller v. Hygrade Food Products, Inc.: The firm served as lead counsel and obtained a
settlement of $3.5 million on behalf of a group of African American employees of Sara Lee
Foods Corp. to resolve charges of racial discrimination and retaliation at its Ball Park Franks
plant. (No. 99-1087 (E.D. Pa.)).
Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a
settlement of $2,925,000 on behalf of loan officers who worked in four offices of to resolve
claims for unpaid overtime wages. A significant opinion issued in the case is Chabrier v.
Wilmington Finance, Inc., 2008 WL 938872 (E.D. Pa. April 04, 2008) (denying the defendant’s
motion to decertify the class). (No. 06-4176 (E.D. Pa.)).
Bonnette v. Rochester Gas & Electric Co.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a
settlement of $2 million on behalf of a class of African American employees of Rochester Gas &
Electric Co. to resolve charges of racial discrimination in hiring, job assignments, compensation,
promotions, discipline, terminations, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. (No. 07-6635
(W.D.N.Y.)).
Confidential. The firm served as lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $6 million on behalf
of a group of African American employees of a Fortune 100 company to resolve claims of racial
discrimination, as well as injunctive relief which included significant changes to the Company’s
employment practices (settled out of court while charges of discrimination were pending with the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).
Spencer v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.: The firm, together with co-counsel,
prosecuted this national class action against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and its
affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Spencer v. Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-1681) on behalf of approximately 22,000
claimants, each of whom entered into structured settlements with Hartford property and casualty
insurers to settle personal injury and workers' compensation claims. To fund these structured
settlements, the Hartford property and casualty insurers purchased annuities from their affiliate,
Hartford Life. By purchasing the annuity from Hartford Life, The Hartford companies allegedly
were able to retain up to 15% of the structured amount of the settlement in the form of
undisclosed costs, commissions and profit - all of which was concealed from the settling
claimants. On March 10, 2009, the U.S. District Court certified for trial claims on behalf of two
national subclasses for civil RICO and fraud (256 F.R.D. 284 (D. Conn. 2009)). On October 14,
2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied The Hartford's petition for interlocutory
appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).On September 21, 2010, the U.S. District
Court entered judgment granting final approval of a $72.5 million cash settlement.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell: The firm, together with co-counsel,
prosecuted this class action against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in West Virginia
Circuit Court, Roane County (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O'Dell, Case No. 00-C24
37), on behalf of current and former West Virginia automobile insurance policyholders, which
arose out of Nationwide's failure, dating back to 1993, to offer policyholders the ability to
purchase statutorily-required optional levels of underinsured ("UIM") and uninsured ("UM")
motorist coverage in accordance with West Virginia Code 33-6-31. The court certified a trial
class seeking monetary damages, alleging that the failure to offer these optional levels of
coverage, and the failure to provide increased first party benefits to personal injury claimants,
breached Nationwide's insurance policies and its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violated
the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act. On June 25, 2009, the court issued final approval
of a settlement that provided a minimum estimated value of $75 million to Nationwide auto
policyholders and their passengers who were injured in an accident or who suffered property
damage.
Other Individual Litigation
Rita Rappaport v. Samuel Rappaport; Estate of Samuel Rappaport, Deceased: Berger &
Montague settled this divorce action involving significant marital real estate holdings for in
excess of $20 million for the client.
25
FOUNDING PARTNER:
David Berger (1912-2007)
David Berger was the founder and the Chairman of Berger & Montague. He received his A.B.
cum laude in 1932 and his LL.B. cum laude in 1936, both from the University of Pennsylvania.
He was a member of The Order of the Coif and was an editor of the University of Pennsylvania
Law Review. He had a distinguished scholastic career including being Assistant to Professor
Francis H. Bohlen and Dr. William Draper Lewis, Director of the American Law Institute,
participating in the drafting of the first Restatement of Torts. He also served as a Special
Assistant Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He was a member of the Board
of Overseers of the Law School and Associate Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. In
honor of his many contributions, the Law School established the David Berger Chair of Law for
the Improvement of the Administration of Justice.
David Berger was a law clerk for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He served as a deputy
assistant to Director of Enemy Alien Identification Program of the United States Justice
Department during World War II.
Thereafter he was appointed Lt.j.g. in the U.S. Naval Reserve and he served in the South Pacific
aboard three aircraft carriers during World War II. He was a survivor of the sinking of the
U.S.S. Hornet in the Battle of Santa Cruz, October 26, 1942. After the sinking of the Hornet,
Admiral Halsey appointed him a member of his personal staff when the Admiral became
Commander of the South Pacific. Mr. Berger was ultimately promoted to Commander. He was
awarded the Silver Star and Presidential Unit Citation.
After World War II, he was a law clerk in the United States Court of Appeals. The United States
Supreme Court appointed David Berger a member of the committee to draft the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the basic evidentiary rules employed in federal courts throughout the United States.
David Berger was a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Society
of Barristers, and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, of which he was a former Dean.
He was a Life Member of the Judicial Conference of the Third Circuit and the American Law
Institute.
A former Chancellor (President) of the Philadelphia Bar Association, he served on numerous
committees of the American Bar Association and was a lecturer and author on various legal
subjects, particularly in the areas of antitrust, securities litigation, and evidence.
David Berger served as a member of President John F. Kennedy’s committee which designed
high speed rail lines between Washington and Boston. He drafted and activated legislation in the
Congress of the United States which resulted in the use of federal funds to assure the continuance
of freight and passenger lines throughout the United States. When the merger of the
26
Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, which created the Penn Central
Transportation Company, crashed into Chapter 11, David Berger was counsel for Penn Central
and a proponent of its reorganization. Through this work, Mr. Berger ensured the survival of the
major railroads in the Northeastern section of the United States including Penn Central, New
Jersey Central, and others.
Mr. Berger’s private practice included clients in London, Paris, Dusseldorf, as well as in
Philadelphia, Washington, New York City, Florida, and other parts of the United States. David
Berger instituted the first class action in the antitrust field, and for over 30 years he and the
Berger firm were lead counsel and/or co-lead counsel in countless class actions brought to
successful conclusions, including antitrust, securities, toxic tort and other cases. He served as
one of the chief counsel in the litigation surrounding the demise of Drexel Burnham Lambert, in
which over $2.6 billion was recovered for various violations of the securities laws during the
1980s. The recoveries benefitted such federal entities as the FDIC and RTC, as well as
thousands of victimized investors.
In addition, Mr. Berger was principal counsel in a case regarding the Three Mile Island accident
near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, achieving the first legal recovery of millions of dollars for
economic harm caused by the nation’s most serious nuclear accident. As part of the award in the
case, David Berger established a committee of internationally renowned scientists to determine
the effects on human beings of emissions of low level radiation.
In addition, as lead counsel in In re Asbestos School Litigation, he brought about settlement of
this long and vigorously fought action spanning over 13 years for an amount in excess of $300
million.
David Berger was active in Democratic politics. President Clinton appointed David Berger a
member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, in which capacity he served from
1994-2004. In addition to his having served for seven years as the chief legal officer of
Philadelphia, he was a candidate for District Attorney of Philadelphia, and was a Carter delegate
in the Convention which nominated President Carter.
Over his lengthy career David Berger was prominent in a great many philanthropic and
charitable enterprises some of which are as follows: He was the Chairman of the David Berger
Foundation and a long time honorary member of the National Commission of the
Anti-Defamation League. He was on the Board of the Jewish Federation of Philadelphia and, at
his last place of residence, Palm Beach, as Honorary Chairman of the American Heart
Association, Trustee of the American Cancer Society, a member of the Board of Directors of the
American Red Cross, and active in the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County.
David Berger’s principal hobby was tennis, a sport in which he competed for over 60 years. He
was a member of the Board of Directors of the International Tennis Hall of Fame and other
related organizations for assisting young people in tennis on a world-wide basis.
27
THE SHAREHOLDERS:
Harold Berger
Harold Berger, a former Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, is a graduate of
the University of Pennsylvania School of Electrical Engineering (B.S.E.E. 1948) and the
University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1951). He is a senior partner and managing
principal of the firm and serves on its Executive Committee.
He currently serves as a member of the Board of Overseers of the School of Engineering and
Applied Science of the University of Pennsylvania. He has served as Chair of the Third Circuit
Class Action and Complex Litigation Committee of the Federal Bar Association and is past
Chair of the FBA’s National Committee on the Federal and State Judiciary. He is the author of
numerous law review articles and has lectured extensively before bar associations and at
universities. His biography appears in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law
and Who’s Who in the World. He has been given the highest rating for legal ability as well as
the highest rating for ethical standards by the Martindale-Hubbell American legal directory.
Harold Berger has participated in many national litigation and class action matters of a complex
nature, including the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, C.A. No. A89-095 (D. Alaska), which
resulted in a record punitive damage award of $5 billion against Exxon after Trial and in which
he served on the case management team and as Co-Chair of the national discovery team. He also
participated in the In re Three Mile Island Litigation, C.A. No. 79-0432 (M.D. Pa.), where he
acted as liaison counsel, and in the nationwide school asbestos property damage class action, In
re Asbestos School Litigation, Master File No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.), where the firm was co-lead
counsel. The case was settled for an amount in excess of $300 million. He also served as colead counsel in the Ashland Oil Spill Litigation, Master File No. M-14670 (W.D. Pa.), as co-lead
counsel in the Chrysler Motors Corp. Odometer Litigation, MDL Docket No. 740 (E.D. Mo.),
and as lead counsel in the Collins & Aikman Product Liability Class Action, C.A. No. 87-2529
(E.D. Pa.).
Harold Berger is a former member of the State and Federal Court Relations Committee of the
National Conference of State Trial Judges and is the recipient of numerous awards including a
Special American Bar Association Presidential Program Award and Medal and the Special
Service Award of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. He is the recipient of the
Federal Bar Association’s National Service Award for distinguished service to the Federal and
State Judiciary. He is a permanent member of the Judicial Conference of the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals and served as National Chair of the FBA’s Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee.
Recipient of the Alumnus of the Year Award of the Thomas McKean Law Club of the University
of Pennsylvania Law School, Harold Berger was honored by the University of Pennsylvania
School of Engineering and Applied Science by the dedication of the Honorable Harold Berger
Annual Lecture and Award to a technical innovator who has made a lasting contribution to the
28
quality of our lives. He was further honored by the University by the dedication of a student
award in his name for engineering excellence.
Harold Berger has served as Chair of the International Conferences on Global Interdependence
held at Princeton University. He has served as Chair of the Aerospace Law Committees of the
American, Federal and Inter-American Bar Associations and, in recognition of the importance
and impact of his scholarly work, was elected to the International Academy of Astronautics in
Paris. He is active in law and engineering alumni affairs at Penn, serving as a University
Overseer and as Chair of the Friends of Biddle Law Library. He is a past President of the
Eastern District Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and has served as Chair of the Chapter’s
Class Action and Complex Litigation Committees in addition to serving as Chair of the BenchBar Liaison Committee.
Long active in diverse, philanthropic, charitable, community and inter-faith endeavors, Harold
Berger currently serves as a Trustee of The Federation of Jewish Charities of Greater
Philadelphia, as a Director of the National Museum of Jewish History, as a National Director of
the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) in its endeavors to assist refugees and indigent souls
of all faiths, as a Charter Fellow of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association and as a
member of the Hamilton Circle of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation. He is the recipient of “The
Children of the American Dream” award of HIAS and Council for his leadership in the civic,
legal, academic and Jewish communities.
H. Laddie Montague, Jr.
H. Laddie Montague, Jr. is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1960) and the
Dickinson School of Law (L.L.B. 1963) where he was a member of the Board of Editors of the
Dickinson Law Review. He is currently Chairman of the Board of Governors for Dickinson
School of Law of Penn State University. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the firm
having joined its predecessor David Berger, P.A. at its inception in 1970. He is the President and
shareholder of the firm and is Chairman of the Antitrust Department.
In addition to being one of the courtroom trial counsel for plaintiffs in the mandatory punitive
damage class action in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, Mr. Montague has served as lead or
co-lead counsel in many class actions, including In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation (1993)
and Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., a nationwide class action against thirteen major oil companies
(1984). Mr. Montague is co-lead counsel for the State of Connecticut in its litigation against the
tobacco industry.
Mr. Montague was one of four co-lead counsel in In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs
Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. 997 (N.D. Ill.) and was one of three co-lead counsel in In Re High
Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1087 (C.D. Ill.). In addition to the Exxon
Valdez Litigation, he has tried several complex, protracted cases to jury, including two class
actions: In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, (1977) and In re Corrugated Container Antitrust
29
Litigation (1980). For his work as trial counsel in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation,
Mr. Montague shared the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1995 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award.
Mr. Montague has frequently lectured on class action litigation for the Practicing Law Institute,
the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and before other associations. He has taught a Complex Litigation
Course at Temple University Law School and has been a panelist at the Federal Bench-Bar
Conference for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Montague was a member of the 1984
faculty of the Columbia Law School Continuing Legal Educational Program entitled “The Trial
of an Antitrust Case.” Mr. Montague has testified before Congress with respect to antitrust and
business fraud legislation, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”). He is currently a member of the Advisory Board of the Antitrust & Trade Regulation
Report published by the Bureau of National Affairs.
Sherrie R. Savett
Summary
Sherrie R. Savett, Chair of the Securities Litigation Department, and member of the Management
Committee of the law firm of Berger & Montague, has practiced in the area of securities
litigation and class actions since 1975. Eight securities class actions in which Ms. Savett served
as lead counsel, are among the largest securities class actions settled in the United States since
the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) in 1995. She has
advanced investor protection by helping to establish several significant legal precedents. Ms.
Savett speaks and writes often on professional topics, and is also a business and community
leader.
Ms. Savett serves or has served as lead or co-lead counsel or as a member of the executive
committee in a large number of important securities and consumer class actions in federal and
state courts across the country, including:
Advanced Micro Devices (class settlement of $11.5 million);
*Alcatel Alsthom (class settlement of $75 million);
BankAmerica (derivative settlement of $39.25 million);
Boston Chicken (class settlement of $21.5 million);
Bristol-Myers Squibb (class settlement of $20 million);
Cephalon (class settlement of $17 million);
*Cigna (class settlement of $93 million);
Coastal Physician Group (class settlement of $8.15 million);
Crocker Bank (class settlement of $35 million);
Employee Solutions (class settlement valued at $15 million);
Fidelity/Micron (class settlement of $10 million);
*Fleming Companies (class settlement of $94 million);
30
Genentech (class settlement of $29 million);
Global Crossing (class settlement of $444 million);
Home Shopping Network (class settlement of $18.2 million);
*KLA-Tencor (class settlement of $65 million);
Long Island Lighting (class settlement of $48.5 million);
Marconi (class settlement of $7.1 million);
*Medaphis/Deloitte & Touche (class settlement of $96.5 million);
MicroWarehouse (class settlement valued at $30 million);
Motorola (class settlement of $15 million);
Oak Industries (class settlement in excess of $35 million);
Plains All American Pipeline LP (class settlement of $24.1 million);
Policy Management (class settlement of $32 million);
Policy Management II (class settlement of $7.75 million);
Public Service Company of New Mexico (class and derivative settlements of $33 million);
Raychem (class settlement of $19.5 million);
*Rite Aid (class settlement of $334 million);
Safety-Kleen (class settlement of $44.5 million achieved two days before trial);
Sepracor (class settlement of $52.5 million)
Shopko Stores (class settlement of $4.9 million);
SmithKline Beckman (class settlement of $22 million);
*Sotheby’s Holdings (class settlement of $70 million);
Summit Technology (class settlement of $10 million);
Sunrise Medical (class settlement of $20 million);
Subaru (class settlement of $70 million);
Synergen (class settlement of $28 million);
U.S. Bioscience (class settlement valued at $15.25 million);
United HealthCare (class settlement of $20.1 million);
United Telecommunications (class settlement of $28 million);
Valujet (class settlement of $5 million);
W.R. Grace (derivative settlement of $8.5 million);
*Waste Management (class settlement of $220 million); and
*Xcel Energy (class settlement of $80 million).
* Listed among the largest securities class actions settled in the United States since the
enactment of the PSLRA in 1995.
Investor Protection
Ms. Savett has helped establish several significant precedents. Among them is the holding (the
first ever in a federal appellate court) that municipalities are subject to the anti-fraud provisions
of SEC Rule 10b-5 under ‘ 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that municipalities
that issue bonds are not acting as an arm of the state and therefore are not entitled to immunity
from suit in the federal courts under the Eleventh Amendment. Sonnenfeld v. City and County of
Denver, 100 F.3d 744 (10th Cir.1996)
31
In the U.S. Bioscience securities class action, a biotechnology case where critical discovery was
needed from the federal Food and Drug Administration, the court ruled that the FDA may not
automatically assert its administrative privilege to block a subpoena and may be subject to
discovery depending on the facts of the case. In re U.S. Bioscience Secur. Litig., 150 F.R.D. 80
(E.D. Pa. 1993)
In the CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, holding that a plaintiff has a right to recover for losses on shares held at the time of a
corrective disclosure and his gains on a stock should not offset his losses in determining legally
recoverable damages. In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation, 459 F. Supp. 2d 338 (E.D. Pa.
2006).
Judicial Praise
From Judge Stewart Dalzell, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 92-0678, hearing held April 4, 1994
(E.D. Pa. 1994).:
“The quality of lawyering on both sides, but I am going to stress now on the plaintiffs’ side,
simply has not been exceeded in any case, and we have had some marvelous counsel appear
before us and make superb arguments, but they really don’t come any better than Mrs. Savett . . .
, and the arguments we had on the motion to dismiss [Mrs. Savett argued the motion], both sides
were fabulous, but plaintiffs’ counsel were as good as they come.”
From Judge David S. Doty, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, In re Xcel
Energy Sec. Deriv. “ERISA” Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992, 995-96 (D. Minn. 2005):
“ [A] just result without the assistance of a governmental investigation,” plaintiffs’ co-lead
counsel Berger & Montague “conducted themselves in an exemplary manner,” “consistently
demonstrated considerable skill and cooperation to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion,”
and “moved the case along expeditiously”.
From Judge Wayne R. Andersen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
In Re: Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 97-C 7709 (N.D. Ill.
1999):
“...[Y]ou have acted the way lawyers at their best ought to act. And I have had a lot of cases...in
15 years now as a judge and I cannot recall a significant case where I felt people were better
represented than they are here ... I would say this has been the best representation that I have
seen.”
32
From Judge Stewart Dalzell, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
In re Rite Aid Inc. Sec. Litig., 269 F.Supp. 2d 603, 611 (E.D. Pa. 2003):
“This litigation presented layers of factual and legal complexity which assured that, absent a
global settlement, these disputes would take on Dickensian dimensions  In short, it would be
hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here . [T]hey were at least eighteen months
ahead of the United States Department of Justice in ferreting out the conduct that ultimately
resulted in the write down of over $1.6 billion in previously reported Rite Aid earnings.
From U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson, In Re: CIGNA Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 51089, **17-18 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007):
“The Court is aware of and attests to the skill and efficiency of class counsel: they have been
diligent in every respect, and their briefs and arguments before the Court were of the highest
quality. The firm of Berger & Montague took the lead in the Court proceedings; its attorneys
were well prepared, articulate and persuasive.”
Professional Leadership
Ms. Savett is active in her profession, and is a frequent author and lecturer on prosecuting
shareholder and consumer class actions. She was formerly on the board of the Philadelphia Bar
Foundation.
In May 2007, Ms. Savett spoke in Rome, Italy at the conference presented by the Litigation
Committee of the Dispute Resolution Section of the International Bar Association and the
Section of International Law of the American Bar Association on class certification. Ms. Savett
participated in a mock hearing before a United States Court on whether to certify a worldwide
class action that includes large numbers of European class members.
She has lectured at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and at the Stanford
Law School on prosecuting shareholder class actions. She is frequently invited to present and
serve as panelist in American Bar Association, American Law Institute/American Bar
Association and Practicing Law Institute (PLI) conferences on securities class action litigation
and the use of class actions in consumer litigation. She has been a presenter and panelist at PLI’s
Securities Litigation and Enforcement Institute annually since 1995. She has also spoken at
major institutional investor and insurance industry conferences, and DRI -- the Voice of the
Defense Bar. In February 2009, she was a member of a six person panel who presented an
analysis of the current state of securities litigation before over 1,000 underwriters and insurance
executives at the PLUS (Professional Liability Underwriting Society) Conference in New York
City. She has presented at the Cyber-Risk Conference in 2009 and will present at the PLUS
Conference in Chicago on November 16, 2009 on the subject of litigation involving security
breaches and theft of personal information.
33
Ms. Savett is a member of the Editorial Board of the Securities Litigation Report and has been a
contributor to this publication.
She has written numerous articles on securities and complex litigation issues, including:
“Plaintiffs’ Vision of Securities Litigation: Current Trends and Strategies,” 1762 PLI, October
2009
“Plaintiffs’ Vision of Securities Litigation: Trends/Strategies in 2005-2007,” 1620 PLI,
September 2007
“Plaintiffs’ Vision of Securities Litigation: Trends/Strategies in 2005-2007,” SM086 ALI ABA,
June 7-8, 2007
“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 1557 PLI,
September 2006
“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 1505 PLI,
September 2005
“Recent Developments in the Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel Provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA),” 1 Securities Litigation Report, (Glasser
LegalWorks) December 2004-January 2005
“Primary Liability of ‘Secondary’ Actors under the PSLRA,” 1 Securities Litigation Report,
(Glasser) November 2004
“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 1442
PLI/Corp.13, September-October 2004
“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” SJ084 ALIABA 399, May 13-14, 2004
“The ‘Indispensable Tool’ of Shareholder Suits,” Directors & Boards, Vol. 28, February 18,
2004
“Plaintiff’s Perspective on How to Obtain Class Certification in Federal Court in a Non-Federal
Question Case”, 679 PLI, August 2002
“Hurdles in Securities Class Actions: The Impact of Sarbanes-Oxley from a Plaintiff’s
Perspective,” 9 Securities Litigation and Regulation Reporter (Andrews), December 23, 2003
“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” SG091 ALIABA, May 2-3, 2002
34
“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” SF86 ALIABA 1023, May 10, 2001
“Greetings from the Plaintiffs’ Class Action Bar: We’ll Be Watching,” SE082 ALI-ABA739,
May 11, 2000
“Preventing Financial Fraud,” B0-00E3 PLI BO-00E3 April-May 1999
“Shareholders Class Actions in the Post Reform Act Era,” SD79 ALI-ABA 893, April 30, 1999
“What to Plead and How to Plead the Defendant’s State of Mind in a Federal Securities Class
Action,” with Arthur Stock, PLI, ALI/ABA 7239, November 1998
“The Merits Matter Most: Observations on a Changing Landscape under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995,” 39 Arizona Law Review 525, 1997
“Everything David Needs to Know to Battle Goliath,” ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section,
The Brief, Vol. 20, No.3, Spring 1991
“The Derivative Action: An Important Shareholder Vehicle for Insuring Corporate
Accountability in Jeopardy,” PLI H4-0528, September 1, 1987
“Prosecution of Derivative Actions: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” PLI H4-5003, September 1, 1986
Honors
Ms. Savett is widely recognized as a leading litigator and a top female leader in the profession by
local and national legal rating organizations.
The Legal Intelligencer and Pennsylvania Law Weekly named her one of the “56 Women
Leaders in the Profession” in 2004.
In 2003-2005 and 2007-2009, Berger & Montague was named to the National Law Journal’s
“Hot List” of 12-20 law firms nationally “who specialize in plaintiffs’ side litigation and have
excelled in their achievements.” Having achieved this designation in 6 out of 7 years, the firm is
on the National Law Journal’s “Hall of Fame.” Ms. Savett’s achievements were mentioned,
among others, in each year.
Ms. Savett was named a “Pennsylvania Top 50 Female Super Lawyer” and a “Pennsylvania
Super Lawyer” from 2004 through 2009 by Philadelphia Magazine after an extensive
nomination and polling process among Pennsylvania lawyers.
35
In 2006 and 2007, she was named one of the “500 Leading Litigators” and “500 Leading
Plaintiffs’ Litigators” in the United States by Lawdragon. In 2008, Ms. Savett was named as one
of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America.” Also in 2008, she was named one of 25 “Women of
the Year” in Pennsylvania by The Legal Intelligencer and Pennsylvania Law Weekly which
stated on May 19, 2008 in the Women in the Profession in The Legal Intelligencer that she “has
been a prominent figure nationally in securities class actions for years, and some of her recent
cases have only raised her stature.”
In June 2008, Ms. Savett was named by Lawdragon as one of the “100 Lawyers You Need to
Know in Securities Litigation.”
Business and Community Leadership
A business leader, Ms. Savett is a member of The Forum of Executive Women and a member of
the Union League of Philadelphia.
Ms. Savett is active in community affairs. She is Vice President of The Jewish Federation of
Philadelphia, and has served for decades on the Board of Trustees and its 29 member Executive
Committee called the Board of Directors. She is Vice Chairperson of the Board of Directors of
the National Liberty Museum, and is Chairperson of the Southeastern Pennsylvania State of
Israel Bonds and is a member of the National Cabinet of Israel Bonds. In 2005, she received The
Spirit of Jerusalem Medallion, the State of Israel Bonds’ highest honor. She is a former board
member of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Weizman Institute, and the American Jewish
Committee.
Education
She earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and a B.A. summa cum
laude from the University of Pennsylvania.
Personal
Ms. Savett and her husband have five children and four grandchildren. In addition to her family,
she enjoys tennis, physical training, travel and collecting art, especially glass and sculpture.
Merrill G. Davidoff
Merrill G. Davidoff, a Senior Shareholder in the firm, received a B.A. degree from the
University of Pennsylvania, and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School (cum
laude). He is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New
York, the United States Supreme Court, and numerous federal Courts of Appeal. Mr. Davidoff is
Co-Chairman of the Antitrust Department with Mr. Montague, Chairs the Environmental Group,
and has litigated and tried a wide range of securities, antitrust, and environmental class actions.
36
In the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant class action where Mr. Davidoff is lead counsel, the
Court held the United States Department of Energy in contempt of court after a one week trial in
November, 1995 (reported at 907 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Colo. 1995)). In 2005-2006, this class action
finally went to trial (with Mr. Davidoff as lead trial counsel) and, in February 2006, the jury
returned a special verdict for the plaintiffs for $554 million, the largest property damage class
action jury verdict ever. The verdict was the third-largest jury verdict of 2006 in the United
States, according to The National Law Journal. In 2008, after extensive post-trial motions, the
District Court entered a $926 million judgment for plaintiffs in this case. In July, 2009, the trial
team led by Mr. Davidoff won the Public Justice “Trial Lawyer of the Year” award for its work
on the Rocky Flats case. The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate
proceedings are continuing.
In In re Foreign Currency Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1409, where Mr. Davidoff and
Berger & Montague are co-lead counsel, a proposed class action settlement of $336 million with
Visa, MasterCard, and a number of their member banks is pending court approval.
In In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1720, one of the largest pending antitrust cases in the United States, H. Laddie Montague, Jr.,
Mr. Davidoff and Berger & Montague are one of the three Court-appointed co-lead counsel.
During his extensive legal career, Mr. Davidoff has represented diverse clients, including Burger
King Corporation; John I. Haas, Inc.; Joh. Barth & Sohn, A.G.; Karhu, Inc.; Rexroth
Corporation/Rexroth GmbH; ADVO System, Inc.; the LeFrak Organization; Mannesmann A.G.;
Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.; Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.; Carpenter
Technology Corp.; the State of New Jersey; and the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Davidoff
represented the State of New Jersey in the Qwest securities litigation, securing a $45 million
“opt-out” settlement, and currently represents the State of New Jersey in “opt-out” litigation
against former Lehman Brothers Inc. officers and directors. He has also represented many other
large and small companies, sports teams, professional organizations, individuals and professional
firms. He has acted as lead counsel and trial counsel in numerous antitrust, commercial,
environmental, and securities cases. He represented Championship Auto Racing Teams
(“CART”), a major Indy-car race-sanctioning organization, in a series of antitrust cases against
Indianapolis Motor Speedway and others. Mr. Davidoff has been a speaker at American Trial
Lawyers Association meetings and seminars, and has addressed the Environmental and Toxic
Torts Section at the National Convention of ATLA. He is also a member of the Antitrust and
Business Law Sections of the American Bar Association, and served on the subcommittee of the
American Bar Association Antitrust Section which prepared the 1985 supplement to the
“Antitrust Civil Jury Instructions.”
In October, 2007, Mr. Davidoff was on the faculty of a continuing education program for all
Pennsylvania Common Pleas (trial court) Judges, and received the following accolade:
On behalf of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and AOPC’s Judicial Education
Department, thank you for your extraordinary commitment to the Dealing with
37
Complexities in Civil Litigation symposia. We appreciate the considerable time
you spent preparing and delivering this important course across the state. It is no
surprise to me that the judges rated this among the best programs they have
attended in recent years.
From: Stephen M. Feiler, Ph.D.
Director of Judicial Education
Mr. Davidoff served as co-lead and trial counsel for a plaintiff class in the first mass tort class
action trial in federal court which resulted in a precedent-setting settlement for class members, In
re Louisville Explosions Litigation. In the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (“CRTC”) Decisions (Challenge Communications, Ltd. v. Bell Canada), Mr.
Davidoff was lead counsel for Applicant (plaintiff) in three evidentiary hearings before the
CRTC. The hearings resulted in the first precedent breaking Bell Canada’s monopoly over the
telecommunications equipment which was connected to its telephone network. He was lead
counsel in the Revco Securities Litigation, an innovative “junk bond” class action, which settled
for $36 million. Mr. Davidoff was lead plaintiffs’ counsel and lead trial counsel in In re Melridge
Securities Litigation, tried to jury verdicts for $88 million (securities fraud) and $240 million
(RICO). He was co-lead counsel for the class in In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation,
an international price-fixing case which yielded settlements ranging from 18% to 32% of the
plaintiffs’ and class’ purchases from the defendants (aggregate settlements totaled $134 million).
He was one of co-lead counsel in the Ikon Securities Litigation, in which a settlement of $111
million was obtained. He was co-lead counsel and designated lead trial counsel in the In Re
Sunbeam Securities Litigation, where settlements of $142 million were reached. One of his areas
of concentration is representation in commodities futures and options matters, and expertise in
derivatives. He has represented market-makers on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, where he
owned a member firm in the 1990s, as well as broker-dealers and market-makers on other
exchanges.
In 2008, Chambers & Partners highly-regarded Chambers USA Edition rated Berger &
Montague’s Antitrust Practice as “the top choice for plaintiff antitrust representation, particularly
in complex class actions.” Mr. Davidoff was described as a “giant in the field.”
Daniel Berger
Daniel Berger graduated with honors from Princeton University (Class of 1969) and Columbia
Law School (1974) where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone academic scholar. He is presently a
senior member and shareholder of the firm, for which he serves as Managing Shareholder. Over
the last 15 years, he has been involved in a number of complicated commercial cases including
class action securities, antitrust, mass tort and bankruptcy cases. In the antitrust area, he has
headed up the firm’s involvement in highly successful litigation against brand and generic
prescription drug manufacturers in which the Berger Firm has been co-lead counsel, a member of
various executive committees or otherwise played a key role including, inter alia, the following
cases: Duane Reade Co. v. Aventis et al. ($110 million settlement involving prescription drug
38
Hytrin); Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb ($220 million settlement
involving prescription drug Buspar); Valley Drug Co. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., (pending
case involving agreements by brand and generic drug companies to delay generic entry);
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Schering Plough (pending case involving agreements by brand
and generic drug companies to delay generic entry); and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Glaxo
SmithKline Co. (pending case involving fraud on the U.S. Patent Office and improper FDA
listing by a brand prescription drug manufacturer which delayed generic entry. In the civil rights
area, he has been counsel in informed consent cases involving biomedical research and human
experimentation by federal and state governmental entities.
Daniel Berger also has a background in the study of economics having done graduate level work
in applied micro-economics and macro-economic theory, the business cycle and economic
history. He has published law review articles in the Yale Law Journal, the Duke University
Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems and the New York Law School Law Review and
worked with the American Law Institute /American Bar Association program on continuing legal
education. He has been affiliated with the Kennedy School of Government through the
Shorenstein center of Media and Public Policy at Harvard University.
Mr. Berger has been active in city government in Philadelphia and was a member of the Mayor’s
Cultural Advisory Council, advising the Mayor of Philadelphia on arts policy and the
Philadelphia Cultural Fund, which is responsible for all city grants to arts organizations.
Mr. Berger was also a member of the Pennsylvania Humanities Council, one of the State
organizations through which the National Endowment for the Humanities makes grants.
Mr. Berger is also an author and journalist and has published in the Nation magazine and
reviewed books for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Todd S. Collins
Todd S. Collins is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1973) and the University
of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1978), where he won the 1978 Henry C. Laughlin Prize for
Legal Ethics. He is a member of the Pennsylvania and Delaware Bars. Since joining Berger &
Montague in 1982, following litigation and corporate experience in Wilmington, Delaware and
Philadelphia, he has concentrated on complex class litigation, including cases on behalf of
securities purchasers, shareholders, trust beneficiaries, and retirement plan participants and
beneficiaries. Mr. Collins serves on the Berger Firm’s Planning Committee.
Mr. Collins has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous cases that have achieved
significant benefits on behalf of the Class. These cases include: In re AMF Bowling Securities
Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) ($20 million recovery, principally against investment banks, where
defendants asserted that Class suffered no damages); In re Aero Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (S.D. Fla.) (settlement equal to 90 percent or more of Class members’ estimated
damages); Price v. Wilmington Trust Co. (Del. Ch.) (in litigation against bank trustee for breach
of fiduciary duty, settlement equal to 70% of the losses of the Class of trust beneficiaries); In re
39
Telematics International, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D. Fla.) (settlements achieved, after
extensive litigation, following 11th Circuit reversal of dismissal below); In re Ex-Cell-O
Securities Litigation (E.D. Mich.); In re Sequoia Systems, Inc. (D. Mass.); In re Sapiens
International, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re Datastream Securities Litigation
(D.S.C.); Copland v. Tolson (Fischer & Porter Corporate Litigation), (C.P. Bucks County, Pa.)
(on eve of trial, in case against corporate principals for breach of fiduciary duty, settlement
reached that represented 65% or more of claimants’ losses, with settlement funded entirely from
individual defendants’ personal funds); and In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Securities
Litigation (E.D. Pa.). In IKON, where Mr. Collins was co-lead counsel as well as chief
spokesman for plaintiffs and the Class before the Court, plaintiffs’ counsel created a fund of
$111 million for the benefit of the Class.
In addition, Mr. Collins has served as lead or co-lead counsel in several of the leading cases
asserting the ERISA rights of 401(k) plan participants. Mr. Collins has served as co-lead counsel
in In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. ERISA Litigation (D.N.J.); In re Nortel Networks Corp.
ERISA Litigation (M.D. Tenn.); In re SPX Corporation ERISA Litigation (W.D. N.C.); and King
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (D. Nev.). In Lucent, Mr. Collins and his team achieved a settlement
consisting of $69 million for the benefit of plan participants as well as substantial injunctive
relief with respect to the operation of the 401(k) plans.
Mr. Collins is at the forefront of litigation designed to achieve meaningful corporate governance
reform. Recently, he brought to a successful conclusion two landmark cases in which corporate
therapeutics are at the core of the relief obtained. In Oorbeek v. FPL Group, Inc. (S.D. Fla.), a
corporate derivative action brought on behalf of the shareholders of FPL Group, plaintiffs
challenged excessive “change of control” payments made to top executives. In settlement,
plaintiffs recovered not only a substantial cash amount, but also a range of improvements in
FPL’s corporate governance structure intended to promote the independence of the outsider
directors.
Similarly, in Ashworth Securities Litigation (S.D. Cal.), a Section 10(b) fraud case, in which
Mr. Collins was co-lead counsel, plaintiffs again have been successful in recovering millions of
dollars and also securing important governance changes. In this case, the changes focused on
strengthening the accounting function and improving revenue recognition practices.
In corporate acquisition cases, Mr. Collins has served as co-lead counsel in cases such as In Re
Portec Rail Products, Inc. Shareholders Litig. (tender offer enjoined), Silberman v. USANA
Health Sciences, Inc. et, al. (D. Utah) (offer enjoined on plaintiffs’ motion) and Kahn v. Saker,
et al. (Sup. Ct. NJ) (consideration to minority shareholders increased by more than 25 percent as
a result of settlement).
Eric L. Cramer
Eric L. Cramer is a shareholder with the Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
where he has practiced since 1995. He has repeatedly been selected by Chambers USA
40
America’s Leading Lawyers for Business as one of Pennsylvania’s top antitrust lawyers; has
been deemed a “Super Lawyer” by Philadelphia Magazine; was highlighted in 2011 as one of the
top lawyers in the country by the Legal 500 in the field of complex antitrust litigation; and, was
selected as a “Rising Star” and “antitrust ace” by Lawdragon.com. Mr. Cramer has focused his
practice on complex litigation in the antitrust arena, including prosecuting antitrust class actions
in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. In the last several years, Mr. Cramer and his
colleagues have won substantial settlements for their clients and class members from
pharmaceutical industry defendants for a combined total of nearly $1 billion.
Among other writings, Mr. Cramer has co-authored Antitrust, Class Certification, and the
Politics
of
Procedure,
17
George
Mason
Law
Review
4
(2010)
(http://ssrn.com/abstract=1578459); co-wrote Of Vulnerable Monopolists?: Questionable
Innovation in the Standard for Class Certification in Antitrust Cases, to be published in the
Rutgers Camden Law Review (Fall 2010) (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1542143); co-authored a
Chapter of American Antitrust Institute’s Private International Enforcement Handbook (2010),
entitled “Who May Pursue a Private Claim?”; contributed to a chapter of the American Bar
Association’s Pharmaceutical Industry Handbook (July 2009), entitled “Assessing Market Power
in the Prescription Pharmaceutical Industry”; and co-authored an article entitled The Superiority
of Direct Proof of Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Effects in Antitrust Cases Involving
Delayed Entry of Generic Drugs, 39 U.S.F. Law Rev. 81 (Fall 2004).
He is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University (1989), where he was elected to Phi
Beta Kappa. He graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 1993. He is a
Senior Fellow of the American Antitrust Institute, a member of the Advisory Board of the
Institute of Consumer & Antitrust Studies at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, a
member of the Boards of Public Justice (formerly known as Trial Lawyers for Public Justice)
and the Center for Literacy.
Glen L. Abramson
Glen L. Abramson has been a member of Berger & Montague’s Securities Litigation Department
since 2003, concentrating his practice in the area of complex securities class action litigation.
Prior to joining Berger & Montague, he worked at Dechert LLP in Philadelphia, where he
handled complex commercial litigation, product liability, intellectual property, and civil rights
disputes. While at Dechert, Mr. Abramson co-chaired a civil rights trial in federal court that led
to a six-figure verdict. Mr. Abramson also spent three years as a professional equities trader.
Currently Mr. Abramson represents both public and private institutional investors, as well as
high-net-worth individuals, in several high-profile securities fraud class actions. He is actively
involved in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, where Berger & Montague is a member of
the Steering Committee, and represents the interest of investors who were harmed as a result of
the mutual fund industry’s recent market timing and late trading scandal.
41
Mr. Abramson is also active in pursing corporate governance reform on behalf of institutional
investors. He is a member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA),
and had contributed to an article titled “The Indispensable Tool of Shareholder Suits: Private
Securities Litigation as a Remedy for Failed Governance” in Directors & Boards magazine (Vol.
28, No. 2, Winter 2004). Mr Abramson has also commented on securities fraud cases for several
publications, including The Economist.
In 2006, 2007, and 2008, Mr. Abramson was named as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer - Rising
Star. The designation of “Rising Star” is an honor conferred upon only the top 2.5% of attorneys
in Pennsylvania who are 40 or younger.
Mr. Abramson was awarded a B.A. from Cornell University where he was elected to Phi Beta
Kappa. He holds a J.D. cum laude from the Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the
Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Gary L. Azorsky
Gary L. Azorsky joined Berger & Montague, P.C. as a shareholder of the firm in 2002 and
concentrates his practice on qui tam litigation in addition to commercial class actions and
complex commercial litigation. Previously, Mr. Azorsky had been actively involved in
groundbreaking civil rights, commercial and intellectual property litigation, including Internet
and software industry-related litigation, as a partner at the Philadelphia firm of Mesirov Gelman
Jaffe Cramer & Jamieson, and later as a partner at the Philadelphia firm of Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis.
Since joining Berger, Mr. Azorsky has focused primarily on qui tam litigation, particularly in the
context of the health care industry. He works extensively representing whistleblowers in both
state and federal court. A series of False Claims Act cases against drug companies for fraudulent
Medicaid and Medicare drug pricing has led to recoveries of over $200 million, including a $150
million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline PLC.
Mr. Azorsky is admitted to the bars in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Mr. Azorsky is a graduate of The University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1980) and Cornell University
Law School (J.D. 1983).
Jonathan D. Berger
Jonathan Berger is a shareholder in the Employment and Commercial Litigation practice groups
at Berger & Montague. Mr. Berger concentrates his practice on the prosecution of class actions,
collective actions and plaintiff litigation on behalf of employees, consumers, and shareholders
across the country.
42
Mr. Berger also serves as counsel for several commercial hydraulic manufacturers and other
companies. As counsel, Mr. Berger provides legal services relating to corporate, commercial,
employment, and other business activities.
Since joining the firm in September 1987, Mr. Berger has been involved in class actions and
complex commercial litigation including the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation; In re Asbestos
School Litigation, Master File No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa); In re Domestic Airlines Antitrust
Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1991); Ford/Firestone MDL Litigation; Unisys ERISA
Benefits Litigation;; Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation; and Vitamins Antitrust
Litigation. Mr. Berger has also prosecuted complex multi-party litigation involving hydraulic
engineered systems.
Mr. Berger has recently litigated wage & hours cases in federal and state courts including:
Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., No. 06-4176 (E.D. Pa.). Mr. Berger obtained a settlement
of $2,925,000 on behalf of retail loan officers who worked in four offices of Wilmington
Finance, Inc. to resolve claims for unpaid overtime wages and related penalties. A significant
opinion issued in the case is Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., 2008 WL 938872 (E.D. Pa.
April 04, 2008) (denying the defendant’s motion to decertify the class); and Espinosa v. National
Beef California, L.P., No. ECU04657 (Cal. Super. Ct.) ($3.35 million settlement).
Steven L. Bloch
Steven L. Bloch concentrates on class action matters involving insurance and related financial
products and services – including annuities, securities and other investment vehicles, as well as
consumer fraud, ERISA and employee benefits and antitrust. Mr. Bloch also has wide-ranging
complex litigation experience, and has handled matters involving commercial and corporate
disputes, civil RICO, business torts, real estate, securities, banking and credit card transactions
and labor and employment. Mr. Bloch holds the highest peer-review rating, “AV,” in
Martindale-Hubbell and previously has been honored as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer – Rising
Star, in the business litigation arena. Mr. Bloch graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of
Law (J.D. 1992) and the State University of New York at Albany (B.A. 1989).
Representative class action matters as co-lead counsel:


Settlement on behalf of a certified nationwide class involving claims of civil
RICO and fraud against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and affiliates
concerning the Hartford’s structured settlements practices (Spencer v. The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., U.S. Dist. Ct., D.Conn., Case No.
05-cv-1681) ($72.5 million)
Settlement on behalf of a certified class of automobile insurance policyholders in
West Virginia against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for personal
injuries and property damage arising out of Nationwide’s failure to offer
policyholders the ability to purchase statutorily-required optional levels of
43


underinsured (“UIM”) and uninsured (“UM”) motorist coverage (Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell, Case No. 00-C-37, West Virginia Circuit
Court, Roane County) ($75 million)
Settlement on behalf of a class of policyholders in multiple states against AFLAC,
Inc. concerning the improper adjustment of supplemental disability income
policies (Becker v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus and
AFLAC, Inc., U.S. Dist. Court, D.S.C., Case No. 05-2101) ($7 million)
Certified pending multi-state class action against United American Ins. Co. and
certain agents and business affiliates concerning the sale of limited benefit health
insurance and related products (Smith v. Collinsworth et al., Circuit Court of
Saline County, Arkansas, Case No. CV2004-72-2)
Representative complex commercial and civil litigation matters:










Prosecution of an action involving the sale of a health-care industry software
program, resulting in a seven-figure settlement
Prosecution of an action involving the sale of a hair care business and proprietary
information, resulting in a seven-figure verdict and permanent injunction
Successful defense and settlement (for a nominal sum) of an action by a major
credit card brand against a card issuing bank, avoiding enforcement of a longterm contract predicated on price fixing and anticompetitive conduct
Prosecution of an action by a card issuing bank against an internet service
provider and its merchant bank for improper credit card transactions, resulting in
a seven-figure settlement
Successful defense and settlement (for a nominal sum) of an action for
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against a food equipment
manufacturer alleging misappropriation of proprietary information and trade
secrets as well as unfair competition
Established basis for liability against a clearing bank under UCC Article 8
predicated on collusion in the illicit conduct of a securities broker-dealer in a case
of first impression in the State of New York
Successful defense and dismissal of an action against a broker-dealer by a pension
fund for alleged fraud and regulatory violations in connection with a so-called
“mini” tender offer
Secured writ of mandate - upheld on appeal - on behalf of the Philadelphia City
Council against the Mayor of Philadelphia to enforce legislation
Successful defense of an action for a TRO and preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin construction of a multi-million dollar parking garage facility based on
claims of interference with easement, real property and contractual rights
Successful prosecution of multiple actions by the Pennsylvania Insurance
Commissioner on behalf of insurers in insolvency and liquidation proceedings.
44
Carole A. Broderick
Carole A. Broderick is a graduate of Cornell University where she received a Bachelor of Arts
degree. She is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was awarded
an LL.B. and was a member of the Law Review. She has practiced before the Securities and
Exchange Commission and actively participated in the prosecution and trial of complex
securities and antitrust litigation. She is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, the Courts of
Appeal for the Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits.
She was part of the litigation team in the Waste Management Securities Litigation ($220 million
settlement); In re Rite Aid Securities Litigation ($334 million settlement); and CIGNA Securities
Litigation ($93 million settlement).
Ms. Broderick won a decision denying an accounting firm's motion to dismiss a claim that it was
liable for a company’s false quarterly financial statements, although the misrepresentations were
not publicly attributed to it, in Carley Capital Group v. Deloutte & Touche, LLP, 27 F. Supp. 2d
1324 (N.D. Ga. 1998). The case produced a settlement of almost $24 million against the
accountant.
Ms. Broderick has successfully litigated a number of cases against biotechnology, drug and
related companies as co-lead counsel, including In re Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigation ($28
million settlement); In re US Bioscience Securities Litigation ($15.25 million settlement); In re
Cephalon Securities Litigation ($17 million settlement); and In re Cryolife, Inc. Securities
Litigation ($23.25 settlement).
In addition, as Lead Counsel, Ms. Broderick was responsible for winning a $5.5 million dollar
settlement in In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Secs. Litig, 05-md-01695 (S.D.N.Y.) which was
litigated up to the eve of trial. In approving the settlement and award of attorneys’ fees, Judge
McMahon commented:
This was a hard-fought battle. It was a well and at times bitterly litigated case.
Plaintiffs counsel was tenacious.
I think for the first time since I have gotten on the federal bench I can say that I
an1 absolutely comfortable in every way in approving the settlement and also in
approving the requested attorney fees award. The class counsel have put in an
inm1ense an1ount of time on this action. They deserve every dime they are going
to get and probably some that they are not going to get....
I want to thank everybody for all the hard work you put in on the case, they were
very interesting and well-done motion papers, for the fascinating experience of
the final pretrial conference. I hope it was just as good for you as it was for me. It
was one of those very, very intense days, but could say afterward and my law
clerks, my then law clerks said afterward that it was an incredibly intense
45
enlightening experience. They were impressed with and commented on the
professionalism of everybody involved.
Gary E. Cantor
Gary E. Cantor is a graduate of Rutgers College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1974, with highest
distinction in economics) where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and the University of
Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1977), where he was a member of the Moot Court Board and the
author of a law review comment on computer-generated evidence. He was admitted to the
Pennsylvania bar in 1977. Since joining the Berger firm in 1977, he has concentrated on
complex litigation, particularly securities litigation and securities valuations. Among other
cases, Mr. Cantor has served as co-lead counsel in Steiner v. Phillips, et al. (Southmark
Securities), Consolidated C.A. No. 3-89-1387-X (N.D. Tex.), which resulted in several payments
to the Settlement Fund of $82.5 million, and In re Kenbee Limited Partnerships Litigation, Civil
Action No. 91-2174 (GEB), a class action involving 119 separate limited partnerships resulting
in cash settlement and debt restructuring (with as much as $100 million in wrap mortgage
reductions). In addition, he played a major leadership role in: In re Merrill Lynch Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement); In Re KlaTencor Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-06-04065-CRB (N.D. Cal.)($65 million
class settlement approved September 26, 2008); In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action no. 02-12235-MEL (D. Mass.)($52.5 million settlement approved September 6, 2007); In
re Marconi, Plc, Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:01-CV-1259 (W.D. Pa.)($7.1 million
settlement approved January 16, 2004); In re Sotheby’s Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 00 Civ. 1041 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.)($70 million class settlement); In re Fidelity/Micron
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 95-12676-RGS (D. Mass.) ($10 million class settlement);
In re Tucson Electric Power Company Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 89-1274 PHX (WPC C.D.
Ariz.) ($30 million settlement of class and derivative actions). He was also actively involved in
the Waste Management Securities Litigation (class settlement of $220 million).
In addition, for over 15 years Mr. Cantor has also concentrated on securities valuations and the
preparation of event or damage studies or the supervision of outside damage experts for many of
the firm’s securities cases, including the cases listed above as well as many of the firm’s cases
listed under Prominent Judgments and Settlements above. Mr. Cantor’s work in this regard has
focused on statistical analysis of securities trading patterns and pricing for determining
materiality, loss causation and damages as well as aggregate trading models to determine classwide damages.
Mr. Cantor has been active in numerous community service activities, including serving as
treasurer, president and board chairman of a private school.
Shanon J. Carson
Shanon J. Carson is a graduate of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (B.A. cum laude 1996 Criminology) and the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University (J.D. 2000).
46
While in law school, Mr. Carson was Senior Editor of the Dickinson Law Review, and also
served as a law clerk for the Honorable William W. Caldwell, Senior Judge, United States
District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania. Since joining Berger & Montague in August of
2000, Mr. Carson has concentrated his practice in the areas of employment discrimination, civil
rights, products liability and other commercial litigation, and complex class action litigation.
Mr. Carson is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Bart D. Cohen
Bart Cohen graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1984 with two degrees, from the
Wharton School and the School of Engineering and Applied Science. After working as a
software developer, he graduated in 1989 from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he
was a member of the American Criminal Law Review, and authored the “1987 Computer Crime
Update” in the journal’s survey of white collar crime. Since joining the Berger firm in 1991,
Mr. Cohen has concentrated on antitrust litigation, including In re Infant Formula Antitrust
Litigation, (N.D. Fla. 1993), In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, (M.D. Fla. 1996), and
Callahan v. A.E.V., Inc., 182 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir. 1999) (reversing dismissal of antitrust claims of
several small beer distributors). He has also represented an automobile dealership in antitrust
litigation against its franchisor, Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. v. Coast Automotive Group, Ltd.,
(D.N.J.). Mr. Cohen is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Michael C. Dell’Angelo
Michael C. Dell’Angelo specializes in antitrust, securities and complex litigation. Since joining
Berger & Montague, Mr. Dell’Angelo has handled cases in a variety of fields. He has
successfully represented public and private institutional investors and high net-worth individuals
in securities-related litigation. In antitrust and commercial litigation matters, Mr. Dell’Angelo
has represented a wide array of clients, including industrial manufacturers, wholesale purchasers
of prescription drug products, and bankruptcy trustees.
Mr. Dell’Angelo has been deemed a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer - Rising Star, a distinction
conferred upon him annually since 2007. The designation of “Rising Star” is an honor conferred
upon only the top 2.5% of attorneys in Pennsylvania who are 40 or younger. Mr. Dell’Angelo is
regularly invited to speak at Continuing Legal Education and other seminars, both locally and
abroad. He formerly served as the Third Circuit Editor of the American Bar Association’s
quarterly publication, Class Action and Derivative Suits. Mr. Dell’Angelo is a member of the
Philadelphia and American Bar Associations.
Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Dell’Angelo was an associate at Miller Faucher and
Cafferty LLP, where he concentrated in antitrust, securities, and complex commercial litigation.
While at Miller Faucher, Mr. Dell’Angelo also practiced before the Federal Trade Commission.
He devoted a substantial portion of his practice to the prosecution of numerous class action law
47
suits on behalf of survivors of slave labor during the Holocaust. These suits, against German
companies, resulted in a $5.2 billion German Foundation to pay Nazi-era claims.
Mr. Dell’Angelo’s pro bono work includes the representation of an Alabama death row inmate.
That representation resulted in a reversal of the client’s sentencing by the Sixth Circuit and a
grant of a writ of habeas corpus vacating the client’s death sentence.
Mr. Dell’Angelo graduated from Connecticut College (B.A. 1994) and The Catholic University
of America, Columbus School of Law (J.D. 1997). At the Columbus School of Law he was a
member of the Moot Court Honor Society and Phi Delta Phi.
Lawrence Deutsch
Lawrence Deutsch is a graduate of Boston University (B.A. 1973), George Washington
University’s School of Government and Business Administration (M.S.A. 1979), and Temple
University’s School of Law (J.D. 1985). He became a member of the Pennsylvania Bar in 1986
and the New Jersey Bar in 1987. He has also been admitted to practice in Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims as well as various jurisdictions across the country for specific cases.
At the Berger firm, Mr. Deutsch has been involved in numerous major shareholder class action
cases. He recently served as lead counsel in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of Class A
shareholders in a corporate governance litigation concerning the rights and valuation of their
shareholdings. Defendants in the case were the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the Exchange’s
Board of Trustees, and six major Wall Street investment firms. The case settled for $99 million
and also included significant corporate governance provisions. Chancellor Chandler, when
approving the settlement allocation and fee awards on July 2, 2008, complimented counsel’s
effort and results, stating, “Counsel, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts in
obtaining this result for the class.” The Chancellor had previously described the intensity of the
litigation when he had approved the settlement, “All I can tell you, from someone who has only
been doing this for roughly 22 years, is that I have yet to see a more fiercely and intensely
litigated case than this case. Never in 22 years have I seen counsel going at it, hammer and tong,
like they have gone at it in this case.”
Mr. Deutsch currently is court-appointed Lead or a primary attorney in numerous complex
litigation cases: As court-appointed lead counsel In Re Revlon, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil
Case No. 1:09-cv-01008-GMS); serving as principal attorney on behalf of a class of former
principals of Towers Perrin (principals of TPAS, an entity of Towers Perrin) within the
consolidated case Alan H. Dugan et al v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. et al (Civil
Case No. 2:09-cv-05099-MSG); serving as court-appointed lead counsel in In Re Inergy LP
Unitholder Litigation (Del. Ch. No. 5816-VCP ); one of principal trial counsel for plaintiffs in
Fred Potok v. Floorgraphics, Inc., et a.l (Phila Co. CCP 080200944 and Phila Co. CCP
090303768).
48
Over the 25 years working in securities litigation, Mr. Deutsch has been a lead attorney on many
substantial matters. Mr. Deutsch served as one of lead counsel in the In Re Sunbeam Securities
Litigation class action concerning “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap (recovery of over $142 million for the
class in 2002). As counsel on behalf of the City of Philadelphia he served on the Executive
Committee for the securities litigation regarding Frank A Dusek, et al v. Mattel Inc., et al
(recovery of $122 million for the class in 2006).
Mr. Deutsch recently served as lead counsel for a class of investors in Scudder/Deutsche Bank
mutual funds in the nationwide Mutual Funds Market Timing cases. Mr. Deutsch served on the
Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Steering Committee for the consortium of all cases. These cases recovered
over $300 million in 2010 for mutual fund purchasers and holders against various participants in
widespread schemes to “market time” and late trade mutual funds, including $14 million
recovered for Scudder/Deutsche Bank mutual fund shareholders.
Mr. Deutsch has also represented plaintiffs in numerous matters of broker/dealer arbitrations,
consumer fraud, individual securities disputes and construction litigation.
In addition to his litigation work, Mr. Deutsch has been a member of the firm’s Administrative
Committee over the past ten years and also manages the firm’s paralegals. He has also regularly
represented indigent parties through the Bar Association’s VIP Program, including the Bar’s
highly acclaimed representation of homeowners facing mortgage foreclosure.
Prior to joining the Berger firm, Mr. Deutsch served in the Peace Corps from 1973-1976, serving
in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Belize. (He presently serves on the Board of
Directors of the Friends of the Dominican Republic.) He then worked for ten years at the United
States General Services Administration.
Michael T. Fantini
Michael T. Fantini is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University (B.S. magna cum laude 1986) and
George Washington National Law Center (J.D. with honors 1989), where he was a member of
the Moot Court Board. Prior to joining the Berger firm, he was a litigation associate in the
Washington, D.C. office of Dechert, Price & Rhoads.
Since joining the Berger firm in 1992, Mr. Fantini has concentrated in consumer and securities
fraud class action litigation. Some notable consumer cases include: In re Educational Testing
Service Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grade 7-12 Litigation, MDL No. 1643
(E.D. La. 2006) (settlement of $11.1 million on behalf of persons who were incorrectly scored on
a teachers’ licensing exam); Block v. McDonald’s Corporation, No: 01CH9137 (Cir. Ct. of Cook
County, Ill.) (settlement of $l2.5 million where McDonald’s failed to disclose beef fat in french
fries); Fitz, Inc. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., No. 1-94-CV-0601 7 (D. N.J.) (claims-made
settlement whereby fabricators fully recovered their losses resulting from defective contact
adhesives); Parker, et al. v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.; No: 3476 (CCP, Philadelphia County)
49
(claims-made settlement whereby class members recovered $500 each for their economic
damages caused by faulty brakes); Crawford v. Philadelphia Hotel Operating Co., No:
04030070 (CCP Phila. Cty. 2005) (claims-made settlement whereby persons with food poisoning
recovered $1,500 each); Melfi v. The Coco-Cola Company (settlement reached in case involving
alleged misleading advertising of Enviga drink); and In re TJX Companies Retail Security
Breach Litigation, Master Docket No. 07-10162 (D. Mass) (class action brought on behalf of
persons whose personal and financial data were compromised in the largest computer theft of
personal data in history. Some notable securities cases include: In re PSINet Securities
Litigation, No: 00-1850-A (E.D. Va.) (settlement in excess of $17 million); Ahearn v. Credit
Suisse First Boston, LLC, No: 03-10956 (D. Mass.) (settlement of $8 million); and In re Nesco
Securities Litigation, 4:0l-CV-0827 (N.D. OkIa.). Finally, Mr. Fantini is currently representing
the City of Philadelphia and the City of Chicago in separate suits against certain online travel
companies for their failure to pay hotel taxes.
Mr. Fantini is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District of
Columbia.
Bret Flaherty
Since joining Berger & Montague in 1992, Mr. Flaherty has specialized in complex commercial
litigation involving areas such as consumer protection and products liability class action, breach
of contract, employment, international human rights, consumer fraud and lender liability,
including Provident American Corp. and Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Company v. The
Loewen Group Inc. and Loewen Group International Inc., E.D. PA. ($30 million recovery in a
claimed 10-year verbal contract case); In Re: Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Product Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1373 (S.D. Ind.)(multijurisdictional litigation relating to Firestone tires and
the Ford Explorer); Kiobel, et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, et al., (S.D.N.Y.) (relating
to human rights violations in Nigeria against the Ogoni people) and Unisys ERISA Benefits
Litigation (E.D. PA.). Mr. Flaherty has also defended the owner of a landmark hotel in
Philadelphia in litigation relating to the acquisition of the hotel. Mr. Flaherty’s practice also
includes transactional corporate matters.
Mr. Flaherty is a member and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Folk Arts - Cultural
Treasures Charter School, the first public elementary school to be located in Philadelphia’s
Chinatown. Since 1993, Mr. Flaherty has been active in Asian Americans United, a non-profit,
community organization which is a leading advocate on public education issues in Philadelphia
and a variety of other issues affecting the Asian and immigrant communities in Philadelphia.
Charles P. Goodwin
Mr. Goodwin joined Berger & Montague, following his 1992 graduation cum laude from the
University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was an editor of the University of
Pennsylvania Law Review. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Goodwin graduated cum laude
from Williams College (where he received the Graves Essay Prize in economics), and enrolled in
50
graduate studies in economics at Stanford University. Mr. Goodwin also has engaged in
commercial litigation practice in New York. With Berger & Montague, Mr. Goodwin is
concentrating in antitrust and employee benefits litigation. Mr. Goodwin is admitted to practice
law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Ruthanne Gordon
Ruthanne Gordon is a graduate of the University of Michigan (B.A. 1974) and the University of
Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1979). Since joining the Berger firm in 1982, she has
concentrated on the litigation of antitrust, securities and environmental class actions, and
derivative litigation, including the following complex antitrust cases, among others: In re
Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)(shortly before trial the case was settled
for $50 million); In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation ($336 million settlement
pending); In re Compact Disc Antitrust Litigation; State of Connecticut v. Philip Morris, Inc., et
al., in which the State of Connecticut recovered approximately $3.6 billion from certain
manufacturers of tobacco products; and In re Commercial Tissue Antitrust Litigation. She has
also played a lead role in litigation involving the following industries: the real estate industry
(Lyons v. Calderone, et al. (D.N.J.); Best v. Koger Equity, Inc., et al. (M.D. Fla.)); the computer
industry (In re Convex Computer Corporation Securities Litigation (N.D. Tex.); Heideman v.
Toreson, et al. (N.D. Cal.)); public utilities (In re Philadelphia Electric Company Derivative
Litigation (Phila. C.C.P.); In re PSE&G Derivative Litigation (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.)); the
environmental services industry (Houston Corporation v. Environmental Systems Company, et
al. (E.D. Ark.)); the tobacco industry (Friedman v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.)); the
biotechnology industry (In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation (D. Mass.)); and the healthcare
industry (In re W.R. Grace & Co. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)), among others.
Ms. Gordon was co-lead counsel in In re PSE&G Derivative Litigation, where she argued
complex issues of first impression before the New Jersey Supreme Court. She was also counsel
in In re Louisville Explosion Litigation, a class action case alleging property damage, which was
prosecuted through a six-week trial and settled at the close of plaintiffs’ case for more than one
hundred percent of actual damages.
In addition, Ms. Gordon represented a class of Pennsylvania inmates in a federal civil rights class
action, which resulted in the establishment of a statewide treatment program for Pennsylvania
inmates suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service in the Vietnam
war.
Russ Henkin
Russ Henkin graduated from American University in Washington, D.C. in 1969 with a Bachelor
of Science Degree with honors. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School
in 1972. Mr. Henkin was law clerk to Honorable Maurice W. Sporkin in the Pennsylvania Court
of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County from 1972 through 1975. From 1973 through 1975,
he also worked in a small personal injury firm, trying plaintiffs’ personal injury cases. He
51
worked as an associate with the Berger firm from 1975 through 1980. During that time, he was
involved in or tried complex civil litigation matters. His cases included fraud matters, securities
matters, breach of contract, restrictive employment covenant litigation, eminent domain
litigation, and divorce, among other fields.
From 1980 through 1991, he was associated with another firm, again involved in trials of
complex civil litigation matters. His cases involved antitrust, bankruptcy litigation and
reorganization, contracts, malpractice, products liability, employment discrimination,
commercial disparagement litigation, business separation litigation, emotional distress litigation,
claims and defense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”),
stock fraud and foreclosure/workout and other trials. Representative results included
confirmation of a $20 million plan of reorganization for a psychiatric hospital company, and
successful defense against a $30 million RICO suit.
In June 1991, Mr. Henkin returned to the Berger firm, and is again trying complex civil matters.
Those matters involve areas such as stock fraud, class action personal injury, breach of contract
and consumer fraud, and lender liability. In one of his cases, he achieved a $30 million recovery
in a claimed 10 year verbal contract case.
Mr. Henkin is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of
Florida.
Peter R. Kahana
Peter R. Kahana is a shareholder in the Insurance and Antitrust practice groups at Berger &
Montague. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Dickinson College (B.A. magna cum laude
1977) with a degree in Philosophy, and graduated from Villanova Law School (J.D. 1980) where
he was a member of the Villanova Law Review. He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and has clerked at the appellate court level for The Honorable Gwilym A. Price,
Jr., of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Following his clerkship, Mr. Kahana joined the
Berger firm in 1981.
Mr. Kahana has diverse trial and appellate court experience in complex civil and class action
litigation, and he has successfully represented plaintiffs in numerous state and federal courts
across the country. Mr. Kahana has played a leading role in major antitrust and environmental
litigation, including cases such as In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation
($723 million settlement), In re Ashland Oil Spill Litigation ($30 million settlement), and In re
The Exxon Valdez ($287 million compensatory damage and $507.5 million punitive damage
award). In connection with his work as a member of the litigation team that prosecuted In re The
Exxon Valdez, Mr. Kahana was selected to share in 1995 the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award by
the Public Justice Foundation.
Mr. Kahana has also handled many nationwide, multi-state, and state class action cases involving
relief for insurance policyholders, as well as consumers of other types of products or services,
52
who have been victimized by fraudulent conduct or unfair business practices. In 2004,
Mr. Kahana, and his co-lead class counsel, were named as the recipients of the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America’s Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award for their successful settlement
($20 million) of Bergonzi v. Central States Health and Life Company of Omaha, a case involving
an insurer’s refusal to pay for health insurance benefits to thousands of cancer victims for
chemotherapy and radiation treatment (Bergonzi v. CSO, U.S.D.C., D.S.D., Case No. C2-4096).
The award is presented annually to those attorneys whose cases tell the story of American civil
justice and help educate state and national policy makers and the public about the importance of
consumers’ rights.
Other significant cases vindicating the rights of insurance policyholders, in which Mr. Kahana
was appointed co-lead class counsel, have included settlement in 2010 for $72.5 million of a
nationwide civil RICO and fraud class action (certified for trial in 2009) against the Hartford and
its affiliates for their alleged deceptive business practices in connection with the use of structured
settlements (Spencer, et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., 256 F.R.D.
284 (D. Conn. 2009)); and settlement in 2009 for $75 million of breach of contract, Unfair Trade
Practices Act and insurance bad faith tort claims on behalf of a class of West Virginia
policyholders (certified for trial in 2007) alleging that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
failed to properly offer and provide them with state-required optional levels of uninsured and
underinsured motorist coverage (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell, et al.,
Circuit Court of Roane County, W. Va., Civ. Action No. 00-C-37).
In June 2006, Mr. Kahana was selected as a “Pennsylvania Super Lawyer” in a balloting and
blue ribbon panel review process designed to identify attorneys in Pennsylvania who have
attained a high degree of peer recognition and outstanding professional achievement. Five
percent of the lawyers in Pennsylvania are named Super Lawyers.
Michael J. Kane
Michael J. Kane graduated from Rutgers University (B.S. 1991) and Ohio Northern University
School of Law, with distinction (1994), where he was a member of the Law Review. Mr. Kane is
admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and various Federal Courts.
Mr. Kane joined Berger & Montague’s antitrust practice in 2005. Prior to joining Berger &
Montague, Mr. Kane was affiliated with Mager, White & Goldstein, LLP where he represented
clients in complex commercial litigation involving alleged unlawful business practices including:
violations of federal and state antitrust and securities laws, breach of contract and other unfair
and deceptive trade practices. Mr. Kane has served in prominent roles in high profile antitrust,
securities, and unfair trade practice cases filed in courts around the country. Recently, Mr. Kane
served as co-lead counsel in In re Microsoft Corporation Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Litigation (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), in which plaintiffs alleged that as a result of
Microsoft Corporation’s anticompetitive practices, Massachusetts consumers paid more than
53
they should have for Microsoft’s operating systems and software. The case was settled for $34
million. Other cases in which Mr. Kane has had a prominent role include:
In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y.);
In re Nasdaq Market Makers Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y);
In re Compact Disc Antitrust Litig. (C.D. Cal.);
In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litig. (S.D.N.Y);
In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litig. (D.N.J.);
City Closets LLC v. Self Storage Assoc., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.);
Rolite, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Environmental Sys. Inc., (E.D. Pa.);
Amin v. Warren Hospital (N.J. Super.).
Lawrence J. Lederer
Lawrence J. Lederer has concentrated in complex commercial litigation for over 20 years,
particularly in the securities field.
Mr. Lederer has substantial experience representing state government entities, public pension
funds and other institutional investors in securities litigation. For example, Mr. Lederer was one
of three co-lead counsel for lead plaintiff State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio which
obtained a $475 million recovery in the securities class action litigation In re Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 07-cv-9633 (JSR) (DFE)
(S.D.N.Y.). This case involved Merrill Lynch’s disclosures and financial exposures concerning
asset-backed securities such as collateralized debt obligations and other financial derivative
instruments linked to subprime mortgages. During the July 27, 2009 hearing concerning the
$475 million settlement, Judge Jed S. Rakoff stated that lead plaintiff had made “very full and
well-crafted” and “excellent submissions”; that there was a “very fine job done by plaintiffs’
counsel in this case”; that the attorney fees requested were “eminently reasonable” and
“appropriately modest”; and that this was “surely a very good result under all the facts and
circumstances.” Other examples of securities cases in which Mr. Lederer presently is or recently
was substantially involved include: State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of
Investment v. Fuld, et al.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement
System, et al. v. Time Warner Inc., et al., Case No. 002103, July Term, 2003 (Pa. Common Pleas
Ct.-Phila. Cty.); In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, 194 F. Supp. 2d 590 (S.D.
Tex. 2002); Kelly v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., C.A. No. 99C-09-265 WCC, 2002 Del. Super.
LEXIS 39 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2002); and In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports
Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484 (JFK), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93423 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20,
2007).
Earlier in his career, Mr. Lederer played a major role in the historic Drexel/Milken/Boesky
complex of cases. See, e.g., In re Michael R. Milken and Associates Securities Litigation, MDL
Dkt. No. 924, Master File No. M21-62 (MP), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14242, 1993 WL 413673
54
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1993) (approving approximately $1.3 billion overall settlement with Michael
R. Milken and related persons and entities); In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., 995
F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1993) (affirming $1.3 billion settlement); Presidential Life Insurance Co. v.
Milken, et al., 946 F. Supp. 267 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (approving $50 million settlement in novel
“global” class action of all previously unasserted claims against some 500 defendants); In re Ivan
F. Boesky Securities Litigation, 948 F.2d 1358 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming district court approval
of “first tier” settlements totaling approximately $29 million against Ivan F. Boesky and others;
related “second tier” class, derivative and other settlements subsequently approved totaling in
excess of $200 million).
Significantly, Mr. Lederer also has experience in the defense of securities cases. For example,
he was one of the firm’s principal attorneys defending a public company which obtained a pretrial dismissal in full of a proposed securities fraud class action against a mining company based
in South Africa. See In re DRDGold Ltd. Securities Litigation, 05-cv-5542 (VM), 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7180 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007). He also assisted in the defense of an individual
charged with “insider trading” through a criminal jury trial in federal court, and in parallel civil
enforcement proceedings brought by the SEC. United States v. Pileggi, No. 97-cr-612-2, 1998
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8068 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1998), aff’d, No. 98-1811, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS
18592 (3d Cir. July 22, 1999).
In bankruptcy litigation, Mr. Lederer helped obtain hundreds of millions of dollars for investors
in the complex Chapter 11 proceedings involving Drexel Burnham Lambert, including through
appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States
Supreme Court. See, e.g., In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 130 B.R. 910 (Bankr.
& S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1991), aff’d, 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1088
(1993). See also Sapir, et al. v. Delphi Ventures, et al., No. 99-cv-8086-JORDAN (S.D. Fla.)
(recovery of $3.8 million following extensive bankruptcy and related proceedings).
Mr. Lederer has achieved the highest peer-review rating, “AV,” in Martindale-Hubbell for legal
abilities and ethical standards, and has been repeatedly selected as one of the Pennsylvania’s
“Super Lawyers” in the category of securities litigation. Mr. Lederer is admitted to practice law
in Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and several federal courts. Mr. Lederer graduated
from Georgetown University Law Center (LL.M. 1988), Western New England College School
of Law (J.D. 1987), where he was a member of Western New England Law Review, and the
University of Pittsburgh (B.A. 1984), where he was managing editor of The Pitt News, and cocaptain (1983) and captain (1984) of the men’s varsity tennis team.
Jeanne A. Markey
Jeanne A. Markey is a graduate of Colgate University (B.A. cum laude 1979) and the Cornell
Law School (J.D. 1983), where she was on the Moot Court Board. She was admitted to the
Pennsylvania bar in 1983. Since joining the Berger firm, she has been actively involved in
various complex class action litigations, focusing primarily on securities class action litigation.
55
Phyllis Maza Parker
Phyllis Maza Parker is a graduate of Yeshiva University (B.A. cum laude 1969), Columbia
University (M.A. French Literature 1971), Boston University – Brussels, Belgium (M.S. in
Management), and Temple University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 1995), where she was a
member of the Temple Law Review and published a Note on the subject of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines. After her first year of law school, Ms. Parker interned with the
Honorable Dolores K. Sloviter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Following graduation from law school, Ms. Parker served as law clerk to the Honorable Murray
C. Goldman of the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Since joining the Berger firm in September 1996, Ms. Parker has concentrated in complex
securities class action litigation, representing both individual and institutional investors. Among
other cases, she has been on the litigation team in In re Xcel Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation
($80 million settlement, listed among the 100 largest securities class action settlements in the
United States since the enactment of the 1933-1934 securities acts); In re Reliance Group
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation ($15 million settlement); In re The Loewen Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation ($6 million settlement); In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation
($5.5 million settlement); and In re Nuvelo, Inc. Securities Litigation ($8.9 million settlement).
She is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well as the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Russell D. Paul
Russell D. Paul joined Berger & Montague, P.C. in 2006, and concentrates on securities class
actions, complex securities litigation matters and derivative suits. Prior to joining Berger &
Montague, Mr. Paul was with the firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. in Wilmington, Delaware.
Mr. Paul began his legal career in the New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, L.L.P.
Mr. Paul has litigated securities class actions against Tyco International Ltd., Baxter Healthcare
Corp., ALSTOM S.A., Able Laboratories, Inc., Refco Inc., Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae), Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. and Toll Brothers. He has also
litigated derivative actions in various state courts around the country, including in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. He has briefed and argued federal appeals, including arguing before Judges
Posner and Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit. In addition to securities litigation, he has broad
corporate law experience, including mergers and acquisitions, venture capital financing, proxy
contests and general corporate matters.
Mr. Paul graduated from the Columbia University School of Law in 1989, where he was a
Harlen Fiske Stone Scholar and a member of the Moot Court Board. In 1986, Mr. Paul received a
dual degree from the University of Pennsylvania, a B.S. in Economics with a concentration in
56
finance, magna cum laude from the Wharton School, and a B.A. in American History, magna
cum laude from the College of Arts and Sciences.
Mr. Paul is admitted to the bar in the states of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New
York.
Barbara A. Podell
Barbara A. Podell, who joined the Berger firm as a shareholder in the Securities Group in early
2002, holds a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1972 cum laude with
distinction in Art History). She attended the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University, and
from 1973 to 1975, was a full-time faculty member at Temple University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in the Department of Art History. In 1978, Ms. Podell received a Juris Doctor
degree (magna cum laude) from the Temple University School of Law, where she was one of the
top nine students in the graduating class and was Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Law Quarterly
(Volume 51). Prior to joining the Berger firm, Ms. Podell was a founding member of the firm of
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C., and before that, a shareholder at Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf,
both in Philadelphia.
Ms. Podell has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous securities cases in which hundreds
of millions of dollars were recovered for investors. Since joining the firm in 2002, Ms. Podell
has served as one of the firm’s senior litigation attorneys in In re CIGNA Corp. Securities
Litigation ($93 million settlement); In re CryoLife Securities Litigation ($23.25 million
settlement); In re ViroPharma Securities Litigation ($9 million settlement); and Ginsburg v.
Philadelphia Stock Exchange ($99 million settlement).
She is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the United States Courts
of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuist, and the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. She has achieved an “AV” rating (the highest rating) in MartindaleHubbell.
Ms. Podell also serves as a volunteer guide at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Douglas M. Risen
Douglas Risen is a shareholder of the firm and has been a member of Berger & Montague’s
Securities Litigation Department since 1998, concentrating his practice in complex class
litigation with an emphasis on the private civil prosecution of securities fraud. Mr. Risen’s
significant successes in this area include: In re Ikon Office Solutions ($111 million settlement)
and In re Safety-Kleen Corp. ($44.5 million settlement). Mr. Risen also handles class cases for
consumer fraud, predatory lending, and disability discrimination, among other areas.
57
Mr. Risen is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University (B.A. magna cum laude 1994) and
the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1997). He is admitted to practice in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
David F. Sorensen
Mr. Sorensen graduated from Duke University (B.A. magna cum laude 1983) and from Yale
University (J.D. 1989). He was Law Clerk to the Hon. Norma L. Shapiro (E.D. Pa.), in 19901991. He is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States
Supreme Court, and numerous federal Courts of Appeal.
Mr. Sorensen practices in the areas of complex mass tort and antitrust class action litigation. He
helped try a class action property damage case, Cook v. Rockwell Corp., that resulted in a jury
verdict of $554 million on February 14, 2006, after a four-month trial, on behalf of thousands of
property owners near the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant located outside Denver,
Colorado. The verdict was the third-largest jury verdict of 2006 in the United States, according
to The National Law Journal; the largest in Colorado history; and was the first time a jury had
awarded damages to property owners living near one of the nation’s nuclear weapons sites. In
2008, the District Court entered a $926 million judgment for plaintiffs. In July 2009, the trial
team, including Mr. Sorensen, won the “Trial Lawyer of the Year” award from the Public Justice
Foundation, for its work on the Cook case. The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal;
appellate proceedings are continuing.
Mr. Sorensen also played a major role in the firm’s representation of the State of Connecticut in
State of Connecticut v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., in which Connecticut recovered approximately
$3.6 billion from certain manufacturers of tobacco products.
Mr. Sorensen also has played major roles in a number of antitrust cases representing direct
purchasers of prescription drugs. These cases have alleged that pharmaceutical manufacturers
have wrongfully kept less expensive generic drugs off of the market, in violation of federal
antitrust laws. Several of these cases have resulted in substantial cash settlements, including In
re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1317 (S.D. Fla.) ($75 million); and In re
Remeron Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J.) ($75 million). Mr. Sorensen also argued and won class
certification in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2699390 (D.N.J. April 14, 2008), and
In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 365 (D.D.C. 2007); and argued and obtained a
precedent-setting victory in In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 585 F.3d 679
(2d Cir. 2009), in which the Second Circuit held that direct purchasers had standing to seek
antitrust damages relating to Walker Process patent fraud. Most recently, he argued on behalf of
direct purchaser plaintiffs in King Drug Co. v. Cephalon, Inc., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL
1221793 (E.D. Pa. March 29, 2010), in which the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss
antitrust claims arising from agreements between Cephalon and its generic competitors that,
plaintiffs allege, have wrongfully blocked generic competition.
58
Mr. Sorensen presented at symposia in November 2004, and in September 2009, focusing on
antitrust issues in the pharmaceutical industry, at the University of San Francisco School of Law,
and co-authored, with one of the school’s law professors, Joshua P. Davis, Chimerical Class
Conflicts in Federal Antitrust Litigation: The Fox Guarding the Chicken House in Valley Drug,
39 U.S.F. Law Review 141 (Fall 2004).
In October, 2007, Mr. Sorensen was on the faculty of a continuing education program for all
Pennsylvania Common Pleas judges (trial court). He also has been a guest lecturer at the
University of Colorado Law School.
Mr. Sorensen has been named as one Pennsylvania’s “SuperLawyers,” every year since 2005 in
the Philadelphia Magazine; and has received the highest peer-review rating, “AV,” in
Martindale-Hubbell.
Arthur Stock
Arthur Stock’s practice is concentrated in securities litigation. Mr. Stock has litigated numerous
significant cases vindicating the rights of investors, including: Safety-Kleen Corp. ($45 million
stockholders settlement); Synergen, Inc. ($28 million settlement); UICI ($16 million settlement);
Livent, Inc. ($6.45 million settlements); Worldport, Inc. ($5.1 million settlement); Datastream
($5 million cash and stock settlement); Blasband v. Rales (favorable precedent for investors
established in Delaware Supreme Court). He worked on the Berger & Montague team in the
Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation where the firm served as co-lead counsel and a proposed
settlement of $4.75 million has been announced.
Mr. Stock is a graduate of Yale University (B.A. with distinction in economics 1984) and the
Duke University School of Law (J.D. with high honors 1990), where he served as Articles Editor
of the Duke Law Journal. From 1990 to 1991, Mr. Stock served as a law clerk to the Honorable
Jackson L. Kiser, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He joined the
Berger Firm in 1991. Mr. Stock is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Stock is the co-author with Sherrie R. Savett of What to Plead and How to Plead the
Defendant’s State of Mind in a Federal Securities Class Action: The Plaintiff’s Perspective,
Practicing Law Institute, 30th Annual Institute of Securities Regulation, Vol. 2, p. 807 (1998),
and author of Justice Scalia’s Use of Sources in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation:
How Congress Always Loses, Duke L.J. 160 (1990). He has also written political commentary
for Slate.com.
Mr. Stock also serves on the Board of Trustees of Adoptions from the Heart, a non-profit
adoption agency.
Robin Switzenbaum
59
Robin Blumenfeld Switzenbaum is a graduate of Barnard College (B.A. cum laude 1976) and the
University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1985). Before law school, Ms. Switzenbaum was
engaged in the development of commercial and residential real estate in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey. During that time, Ms. Switzenbaum served on the board of directors of the Home
Owners Warranty Council for Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Home Builders Association for
Montgomery and Bucks Counties. Before becoming Of Counsel to the Berger firm in October,
1989, Ms. Switzenbaum was an associate with the Philadelphia firm of Saul, Ewing, Remick &
Saul specializing in real estate, bankruptcy and zoning matters.
Since joining the Berger firm, Ms. Switzenbaum has concentrated in complex civil and securities
litigation. Ms. Switzenbaum was part of the litigation teams in In re Merrill Lynch Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement); In re Rite Aid
Securities Litigation, MDL 1360 (E.D. Pa.) ($334 million settlement), In re Sunbeam Securities
Litigation, 98-8258-Civ-Middlebrooks (S.D. Fla.) ($142 million settlement), and In re CMS
Energy Securities Litigation, 02 CV 72004 (E.D. Mich.) ($200 million settlement). With
Lawrence Deutsch, Ms. Switzenbaum served as lead counsel in Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2202-CC (Del. Ch.) representing certain shareholders of the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange in the Delaware Court of Chancery ($99 million settlement). In
another state court action, Ms. Switzenbaum represented a class of holders of a publicly traded
common stock who were denied their preemptive rights, Korman v. InKine Pharmaceutical,
Case No. 04341 (CCP, Phila. County) ($9 million settlement).
She has also successfully pursued claims on behalf of litigation trusts bringing actions against
officers, directors and auditors of insolvent companies, including Sunterra (recovery against
director and officers and accountants); and U.S. Aggregates (recovery against officers).
Ms. Switzenbaum has participated in several securities class actions including In re Northeast
Bancorp, Case No. N-90-24 (D. Conn) ($4.9 million settlement), In re Chase Manhattan Bank,
Case No. 90 Civ. 6092 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ($17.5 million settlement), In re Midlantic, Case No. 901275 (D.N.J.) ($9 million settlement), In re ShopKo Stores, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-C-1034 (E.D. Wis.) ($4.9 million settlement), and In re Medi-Hut Co., Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 02-881 (D.N.J.) ($4.9 million recovery against accountants, plus recovery
from company).
Recently, Ms. Switzenbaum was named as one of Pennsylvania’s “Local Litigation Stars” in
Complex Civil Litigation and Securities by Benchmark Litigation and as a Pennsylvania “Super
Lawyer” by Philadelphia Magazine.
Ms. Switzenbaum is a member of the bar in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and California.
Ms. Switzenbaum also serves as a volunteer guide at the Philadelphia Museum of Art and as a
member of the Joint Board of Community Legal Services, Inc. and Philadelphia Legal
Assistance. She also recently participated on a panel on 10b-5 litigation pertaining to the
financial crisis presented by NERA Economic Research in Washington, D.C.
Susan Schneider Thomas
60
Susan Schneider Thomas is a graduate of Brandeis University (B.A. magna cum laude 1977) and
Temple University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 1980), where she was a staff member and
Associate Articles Editor of the Temple Law Quarterly and a judicial intern to the Hon. Edward
R. Becker, then on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She
was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1980. In 1980-81, she served as a law clerk to the Hon.
Dolores K. Sloviter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Subsequently she
was an associate at Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, and Greenfield &
Chimicles, in Haverford, Pennsylvania, where she was actively involved in the litigation of
complex securities fraud actions.
From 1985 to 1989 as an associate at Berger & Montague, she concentrated her practice in
complex securities and derivative actions. Upon leaving the Berger firm, Ms. Thomas joined in
establishing the firm of Zlotnick & Thomas and worked there from 1989 through 1995, taking
primary responsibility for the litigation of several major class actions including Geist v. New
Jersey Turnpike Authority, C.A. No. 92-2377 (D.N.J.), a bond redemption case that settled for
$2.25 million and Burstein v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, C.A. No. 92-12166-PBS (D.
Mass.), which settled for $3.4 million. Ms. Thomas returned to the Berger firm in 1996, where
she has had major responsibilities in many securities and consumer fraud class actions,
including In re CryoLife Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 1:02-CV-1868 BBM (N.D.Ga.), which
settled in 2005 for $23.25 million and In re First Alliance Mortgage Co., Civ. No. SACV 00-964
(C.D.Cal.), a deceptive mortgage lending action which settled for over $80 million in
cooperation with the FTC.
More recently, Ms. Thomas has concentrated her practice in the area of healthcare qui tam
litigation. As co-counsel for a whistleblower, she worked extensively with the U.S. Department
of Justice and various State Attorney General offices in the prosecution of False Claims Act
cases against pharmaceutical manufacturers that recovered nearly $1.5 billion for Medicare and
Medicaid programs. She has investigated or is litigating False Claims Act cases involving
defense contractors, private busing companies contracting with school districts, purveyors of
food supplies to school districts, off-label marketing by drug companies, federal grant fraud,
under-value transfers of federal lands, and fraud in connection with for-profit colleges and
student loan programs.
Martin I. Twersky
Mr. Twersky, a graduate of Yeshiva University (B.A. 1969, M.S. 1973), has practiced Antitrust
Law and Complex Litigation at the firm for almost 30 years, during which time he has
successfully represented numerous plaintiffs and defendants in both individual and class actions
pending in state and federal courts. His practice has involved litigation in the oil and gas,
banking, airline, waste hauling, agricultural chemicals and other regulated industries. He is a
graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1980). Among other cases, he has
played a leading role in the following class action cases: In re: Graphite Antitrust Litigation
(E.D. Pa.) (settlements of more than $120 million dollars); In re: Catfish Antitrust Litigation
61
(N.D. Miss.) (as a member of the trial team he helped obtained settlements of more than $27
million dollars); In re: Revco Securities Litigation (N.D. Ohio) (“Junk Bond” class action where
settlements of $36 million were reached); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil (E.D. Pa.) (landmark litigation
with settlements and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of gasoline dealers); and
Lease Oil Antitrust (S.D. Tex.), where in a significant class action decision, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the granting of an injunction prohibiting settlements in related state court actions (see
200 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1263). Mr. Twersky was appointed one of
the co-lead counsel in In re: Abrasive Grains Antitrust Litig. (95-cv-7574) (W.D.N.Y.). Mr.
Twersky has also played a key role in various non-class action cases, such as Kutner Buick v.
America Motors, 848 F.2d 614 (3rd Circuit 1989) (breach of contract) (cited in the Advisory
Committee Notes to the 1991 Amendment to Rule 50, Fed. R. Civ. P.), Florham Park v. Chevron
(D.N.J. 1988) (Petroleum Marketing Act case), and Frigitemp v. IDT Corp., 638 F. Supp. 916
(S.D. N.Y. 1986) and 76 B.R. 275, 1987 LEXIS 6547 (S.D. N.Y. 1987) (RICO case brought by
the Trustee of Frigitemp Corp. against General Dynamics and others involving extortion of
kickbacks from Frigitemp officers). Mr. Twersky also served prominently in savings-and-loan
related securities and fraud litigation in federal and state courts in Florida, where the firm
represented the Resolution Trust Corporation and officers of a failed bank in complex litigation
involving securities, RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims. E.g., Royal Palm v. Rapaport,
Civ. No. 88-8510 (S.D. Fla.) and Rapaport v. Burgoon, CL-89-3748 (Palm Beach County).
62
OUR ASSOCIATES:
Joy P. Clairmont
Joy Clairmont received her B.A. cum laude in international affairs from George Washington
University in 1995, and her J.D. from George Washington University Law School in 1998,
where she served as a managing editor of The Environmental Lawyer law journal. After
graduating from law school, she clerked for The Honorable Richard J. Hodgson of the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Clairmont is a member of the
Pennsylvania Bar.
Ms. Clairmont joined Berger & Montague, P.C. in 2000 and focuses her practice on securities
class actions and False Claims Act (qui tam) litigation. Her qui tam litigation work principally
involves fraud in the pharmaceutical industry.
Ms. Clairmont was a member of the team in the Sunbeam Securities Litigation class action ($142
million settlement). She has also worked extensively representing whistleblowers in qui tam
lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the country. A series of False Claims Act cases
against drug companies for fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid drug pricing has led to recoveries
to date of over $390 million, including a $150 million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
and a $190 million settlement with Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Neill W. Clark
Neill W. Clark graduated cum laude from Appalachian State University in 1994 (B.A.) and from
Temple University School of Law in 1998 (J.D.), where he earned seven “distinguished class
performance” awards, an oral advocacy award and a “best paper” award. After graduating from
law school, he clerked for Judge Stephen E. Levin, who handled pre-trial proceedings in all class
actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.
Since joining the firm in 1999, Mr. Clark has been significantly involved in prosecuting antitrust
class actions on behalf of direct purchasers of brand name drugs and charging pharmaceutical
manufacturers with illegally blocking the market entry of less expensive competitors.
Six of those cases have resulted in substantial settlements totaling over $700 million: In re
Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2002 for 110 million; In re Buspirone
Antitrust Litig. settled in April 2003 for 220 million; In re Relafen Antitrust Litig. settled in
February 2004 for $175 million; In re Platinol Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2004 for $50
million; In re Terazosin Antitrust Litig. settled in April 2005 for $75 million; and In re Remeron
Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2005 for $75 million.
Mr. Clark was selected as a “Rising Star” by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and listed as one of
the Top Young Lawyers in Pennsylvania in the December 2005 edition of Philadelphia
Magazine.
63
An avid runner, Mr. Clark has won the Lawyer’s Division of the annual Philadelphia Bar
Association race seven consecutive times.
Andrew C. Curley
Andrew C. Curley is an associate with Berger & Montague. Mr. Curley received his J.D., cum
laude, from the University of Pennsylvania in 2003. In 2000, Mr. Curley received a B.S. in
finance and economics, magna cum laude, from the University of Delaware in 2000. Prior to
joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Curley practiced in the commercial litigation department of a
large Philadelphia law firm.
In 2010 and 2011, Mr. Curley was named as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer - Rising Star. The
designation of “Rising Star” is an honor conferred upon only the top 2.5% of attorneys in
Pennsylvania who are 40 or younger.
Mr. Curley is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Candice J. Enders
Candice Enders is a member of Berger & Montague’s antitrust department. She received a B.A.
in political science from the University of Delaware in 2000 and earned her J.D. from the
University of Pennsylvania in 2003.
While in law school, Ms. Enders served as a senior editor on the Journal of Labor and
Employment Law, volunteered as a legal advocate at the Custody and Support Assistance Clinic,
and interned at Philadelphia City Council.
Since joining the Berger firm in 2003, she has concentrated entirely on the litigation of antitrust
class action cases, including In re Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) ($50
million settlement achieved shortly before trial); In re Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) Antitrust
Litigation (E.D. Pa.) ($15,100,000 settlement pending); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust
Litigation (N.D. Cal.); and In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.).
Elizabeth W. Fox
Elizabeth Williams Fox is a graduate of Bryn Mawr College (B.A., cum laude, with honors in
Anthropology 1963) and the University of Pennsylvania (M.S. in Education 1972; J.D. 1980).
Before attending law school, Ms. Fox taught history and social studies at the Baldwin School
where she became Head of the History Department. After law school, Ms. Fox joined Ballard,
Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll as an associate where she practiced employment law and general
commercial litigation. In 1985, she joined Hoyle, Morris & Kerr where she specialized in toxic
64
torts and insurance coverage litigation, first as an associate and later as a partner. She joined
Berger & Montague in July 2001 where she concentrates in securities litigation.
Since joining Berger & Montague, Ms. Fox has worked on numerous class action that have
achieved significant benefits on behalf of the Class. These cases include: In re AMF Bowling
Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.) ($20 million recovery, principally against investment banks,
where defendants asserted that class suffered no damages); Ashworth Securities Litigation, (S.D.
Cal.) ($15.25 million recovery, coupled with substantial corporate therapeutic relief); Oorbeek v.
FPL Group, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) (corporate derivative action brought on behalf of the shareholders of
FPL Group, in which plaintiffs recovered a substantial cash amount, and improvements in FPL’s
corporate governance structure); Eagle International Services, Inc. v. Uni-Marts, LC, (C.P.
Luzerne county, PA) (class action by store owners in which owners recovered significant cash
amounts and received numerous favorable changes in their contracts with defendant Uni-Marts);
In re Adams Golf Securities Litigation, (D. Del.) (class action where shareholders received 24%
of their losses as a result of settlement).
Ms. Fox has worked on a number of corporate acquisition cases, including Silberman v. Usana
Health Sciences, Inc. (D. Utah) (offer enjoined on plaintiffs’ motion) and Kahn v. Saker, (Sup.
Ct. N.J.) (consideration to minority shareholders increased by over 25% as a result of
settlement)..
Caitlin Goldwater Coslett
Caitlin Goldwater Coslett is a graduate of Haverford College (B.S. 2005 magna cum laude) and
New York University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 2009). While in law school, Ms. Coslett
was a Lederman/Milbank Fellow in Law and Economics and an Articles Selection Editor for the
NYU Review of Law and Social Change. Since joining Berger & Montague in September 2009,
Ms. Coslett has practiced in the antitrust complex litigation area.
Shauna Itri
Shauna Itri concentrates her practice on complex litigation, representing whistleblowers in qui
tam or False Claims Act law suits in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Ms. Itri has worked on a series of False Claims Act cases against large drug companies for
fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid drug pricing. This litigation has returned well over $1 billion
to state and federal governments pursuant to the Federal and State False Claims Acts, including a
$150 million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline PLC, and a $190 million settlement with Aventis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In addition to representing whistleblowers, Ms. Itri has also represented shareholders in complex
securities class action cases, assisting in litigation that recovered millions of dollars in
settlements including: In re: Adams Golf Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 99-371 (D. Del.
1999) (settled for approximately $17 million); In re: American Business Financial Services, Inc.
65
Noteholders Litigation, No. 05-232 (E.D. Pa.)(settled for approximately $17 million); and Mazur
v. Concord Camera et al., Case No. 04-61159 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (settled for approximately $2
million).
Ms. Itri received a B.A. and an M.A. from Stanford University in 2000 and 2001. While
attending Stanford University, Ms. Itri captained the Stanford University Women's Soccer Team,
was on the Scholar Athlete and Honor Roll and served on the Women's Soccer Pacific Ten
Conference All-Academic Team.
Ms. Itri earned her Juris Doctor from the Villanova University School of Law where she was
Editor-in-Chief of the Villanova Law School Sports & Entertainment Law Journal and published
an article entitled “Maurice Clarett v. N.F.L.: An Analysis of Clarett’s Challenge to the Legality
of the NFL’s Draft Eligibility Rule Under Antitrust Laws.”
Ms. Itri is presently an adjunct professor at Villanova University, teaching a white collar crime
and corporate deviance course. Ms. Itri was named a "Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star"
in 2010 and 2011 by Philadelphia Magazine after an extensive nomination and polling process
among Pennsylvania lawyers. She was placed on Philadelphia's First Judicial District's 2010
Roll of Honor for Pro Bono Service for her service in the community, including acting as a
volunteer attorney for the Education Law Center, Veterans Pro Bono Consortium, Philadelphia
VIP Mortgage Foreclosure Program, the Homeless Advocacy Project, and HIAS.
Jon J. Lambiras
Jon J. Lambiras, Esq., CPA, CFE is a graduate of Pepperdine University School of Law (J.D.
2003) and Bryant College (B.S. in Accounting, cum laude 1996). Since joining Berger &
Montague in 2003, Jon has practiced primarily in the areas of securities fraud and consumer
fraud class actions, including data breach/identity theft litigation. Jon is an attorney, Certified
Public Accountant, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Prior to law school he practiced accounting
for four years as an auditor of public and private corporations. While in law school, Jon was a
Lead Articles Editor for the Pepperdine Law Review.
He has published articles including:



Hacked, a case study published in Computer Fraud Casebook: The Bytes That Byte
(Wiley Publishing 2008, ISBN #978-0-470-27814-7);
White-Collar Crime: Why the Sentencing Disparity Despite Uniform Guidelines?, 30
PEPP. L. REV. 459 (2003) (named Student Article of the Year by the Pepperdine Law
Review – i.e., best student article among all student articles published in Pepperdine Law
Review that year);
Inside Job: A Guide to Insider Trading, 17 THE WHITE PAPER 23 (July/Aug. 2003).
66
Jon has also presented several continuing legal education (CLE) seminars regarding class action
litigation to the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public
Accountants. He is an officer in that organization.
Jon has had significant involvement in the following securities fraud cases, among others: (i) In
re: Bally Total Fitness Securities Litig. (settled for $2 million in 2010); (ii) In re: Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. Securities Litig. (settled for $475 million in 2009); (iii) In re: Carreker Corp.
Securities Litig. (settled for $5.25 million in 2006); (iv) In re: Medi-Hut Co., Inc. Securities
Litig. (settled for $5 million in 2006); and (v) In re: Fleming Companies Securities Litig. (settled
for $94 million in 2005). Jon has had significant involvement in the following data breach cases,
among others: (i) In re: TJX Companies, Inc. Retail Security Breach Litig. (class action for
failure to safeguard personal data for more than 45 million consumers - settled in 2008 for
various benefits valued at over $200 million); (ii) In re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer
Data Security Breach Litig. (pending class action for failure to safeguard customer data for 17
million individuals); and (iii) In re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security
Breach Litig. (pending class action for failure to safeguard credit card information for 130
million cardholders).
Jon is also involved in various charitable activities. He has run clothing drives, toy drives, blood
drives, and a food drive at Berger & Montague.
David A. Langer
David A. Langer is a graduate of Haverford College (B.A. 1991) and Vermont Law School (J.D.
cum laude 1999). While in law school, Mr. Langer was a member of the Vermont Law Review
and also served as a Managing Editor. He was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1999.
Mr. Langer became associated with Berger & Montague in September 1999 and practices in the
antitrust complex litigation area.
Eric Lechtzin
Eric Lechtzin joined the firm in 2008 and concentrates his practice in the areas of securities fraud
class actions, shareholder derivative suits, mergers and acquisitions, and consumer fraud cases.
Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Lechtzin worked with two nationally prominent law
firms where he represented institutional investors, including public pension funds, as well as
individual shareholders, in securities fraud class actions and corporate governance litigation. For
the first 9 years of his career, Mr. Lechtzin worked at a large Philadelphia law firm, where his
practice focused on labor and employment litigation.
Mr. Lechtzin has helped obtain multi-million dollar settlements in a number of federal securities
cases, including the following: In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 3178162
(D. Mass. 2005) ($50 million settlement); In re Global Crossing Access Charge Litig., No. 04MD-1630 (S.D.N.Y) ($15 million settlement); Taft v. Ackermans, (KPNQwest Sec. Litig.), No.
67
02-CV-07951 (S.D.N.Y.) ($15 million settlement); In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Sec.
Litig., No. 1:05-CV-06764 (S.D.N.Y.) ($13.5 million settlement); In re Van der Moolen Holding
N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 1:03-CV-8284 (S.D.N.Y.) ($8 million settlement); Scott Tanne v. Autobytel,
Inc., et al, No. CV 04-8987 (C.D. Cal.) ($6.75 million settlement); In re Hemispherx Biopharma,
Inc. Litig., 09-CV-5262-PD (E.D. Pa.) ($3.6 million settlement achieved after defeating
defendants’ motion to dismiss); In re Biolase Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 8:04-CV-00947
(C.D. Cal.) ($2.95 million settlement). Mr. Lechtzin has also helped obtain significant corporate
governance reforms in shareholder derivative actions.
Mr. Lechtzin received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics, magna cum laude, from
Temple University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, in 1988. Mr. Lechtzin received his
J.D. from Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, in 1991.
Patrick F. Madden
Patrick F. Madden is a member of Berger & Montague’s employee rights practice group.
Mr. Madden joined Berger & Montague in September 2010 after serving as a summer associate
and law clerk at the firm.
Mr. Madden is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania with a major in urban studies (B.A.
2004, honors) and Temple University, James E. Beasley School of Law (J.D. 2010). While at
Temple, Mr. Madden was the Executive Editor of Publications for the Temple Journal of
Science, Technology & Environmental Law, and also served as an intern for the Honorable
Petrese Tucker, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Prior to attending law school, Mr. Madden worked at the United States Department of Labor,
Office of Labor-Management Standards as an investigator.
Neil F. Mara
Neil F. Mara is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross (B.A. 1987) and the University of
Connecticut (J.D. 1991) where he was a member of the executive board of the Moot Court Honor
Society. Mr. Mara was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 19911997. He was also a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, 1996-1997, where he prosecuted large narcotics organizations. Since joining the
Berger firm, he has concentrated on environmental litigation and securities litigation. Mr. Mara
is admitted to practice law in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and various federal courts.
Yael May
Ms. May earned a B.A. with distinction in political science and urban studies from the University
of Pennsylvania in 2006 (magna cum laude) and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law
School in 2009. While at Penn Law, Ms. May was a Public International Law Fellow, served as
68
a senior editor of the Journal of Law and Social Change, and worked as a student advocate in the
Child Advocacy Clinic as well as the Transnational Legal Clinic. Ms. May received the Wapner,
Newman and Wigrizer Award for civil trial advocacy.
Prior to joining Berger & Montague in 2010, Ms. May worked for the Botswana Network on
Ethics, Law, and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) while living in Gaborone, Botswana. During her time
at BONELA, Ms. May worked on HIV discrimination litigation and produced policy reports on
human rights and AIDS.
Yael May is a member of Berger & Montague’s securities department. Ms. May is admitted to
practice law in Pennsylvania. She is fluent in Spanish and proficient in Hebrew.
Jennifer MacNaughton
Jennifer MacNaughton is a member of the Berger & Montague’s antitrust department. She
received her B.A., summa cum laude, in Political Science and German from Tulane University in
1998, her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2001, and her M.P.P. from Georgetown
Public Policy Institute in 2008. Ms. MacNaughton joined the firm’s antitrust department in 2001
and continued to work for the firm on a contract basis while she completed her graduate studies
in Public Policy.
As a member of the trial team in the class action environmental case, Cook v. Rockwell Int’l
Corp., Ms. MacNaughton helped secure a $554 million jury verdict on behalf of property owners
whose land was contaminated by the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility near Denver,
Colorado. (The verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are
continuing.) She has contributed to the success of numerous other cases, including: In re Puerto
Rico Cabotage (settlements pending); In re Currency Conversion Fee ($336 million settlement);
and In re Graphite Electrodes ($47.875 settlements with two defendants). Ms. MacNaughton is
currently active on a number of cases, including In re Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litigation
(M.D. Fla.); Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Braintree Labs., Inc. (“Miralax”) (D. Del.); and
In re Airline Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ga.).
Matthew P. McCahill
Matthew P. McCahill is a 2000 graduate of Rutgers College where he received a B.A., summa
cum laude, in history and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. McCahill is a 2003 graduate of
Fordham Law School, where he was a member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Before
joining Berger & Montague in January 2006, Mr. McCahill was an associate at Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP in New York, practicing primarily in antitrust litigation. Mr. McCahill
continues to focus on antitrust litigation at Berger & Montague. Mr. McCahill is admitted to
practice in the state courts of New York and Pennsylvania, as well as in the U.S. District Courts
for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He
is fluent in French and proficient in Spanish.
69
Ellen T. Noteware
Ms. Noteware earned her undergraduate degree from Cornell University (B.S. 1989) and
graduated first in her class from the University of Wisconsin Law School (J.D. 1993) where she
served as Associate Editor of the Wisconsin Law Review.
Following graduation, Ms. Noteware clerked for the Honorable J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Prior to joining Berger &
Montague, Ms. Noteware handled complex commercial litigation, products liability, employment
law, ERISA and trade secret disputes as an associate at Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. and
at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia. Ms. Noteware continues to handle complex
litigation and class action matters as a member of Berger & Montague’s Antitrust Department.
Jeff Osterwise
Jeff Osterwise is a graduate of Duke University (B.A. in Political Science and certificate in
Markets & Management, 1999) and the Duke University School of Law (J.D., 2005).
Since joining Berger & Montague, P.C. in August 2005, Mr. Osterwise has practiced primarily in
the areas of securities, consumer protection, and commercial litigation.
Mr. Osterwise is actively involved in Berger & Montague’s representation of the City of
Philadelphia and the City of Chicago in separate actions against certain online travel companies
for their failure to pay hotel taxes. He is also involved in the firm’s representation of former
shareholders of a corporation who were harmed by the corporation’s merger with a competitor.
Mr. Osterwise has also been significantly involved in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation
($13.966 million settlement on behalf of investors harmed by mutual fund market timing), In re
Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation ($5.5 million settlement on behalf of an investor
class), and In re Force Protection, Inc. Derivative Action (shareholder derivative action seeking
relief on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, gross mismanagement
and unjust enrichment by current and former Force Protection officers and directors).
Jacob M. Polakoff
Jacob M. Polakoff is a 2006 graduate of the joint JD/MBA program at the University of Miami,
where he was the recipient of the Dean’s Certificate of Achievement in Legal Research &
Writing, was awarded a Graduate Assistantship, and was honored with the Award for Academic
Excellence in Graduate Studies.
Mr. Polakoff holds a 2002 B.S.B.A. from Boston University’s School of Management, where he
concentrated in finance.
70
Since joining Berger & Montague, P.C. in August 2006, Mr. Polakoff has worked in the
commercial litigation and class action securities litigation areas. He is admitted to practice law in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Polakoff was selected as a 2010 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer – Rising Star.
Craig Porges
Craig Porges graduated from the University of Tulane in 2006. While at Tulane, Craig also
attended John Cabot University in Rome, Italy and Florida Atlantic University, in Florida. Upon
graduation from Tulane, Craig then attended law school at Duke University School of Law, and
graduated in 2009. While at Duke Law, Craig was a staff editor of the Duke Journal of
Comparative and International Law, was a member of the Executive Board of Duke Law’s Bar
Association, worked with the Innocence Project, and was a member of Duke Law’s Wrongful
Convictions Clinic. Through his work with the Innocence Project and the Wrongful Convictions
Clinic, Craig helped to obtain the release of an improperly convicted inmate after 17 years of
incarceration.
Since joining Berger & Montague, Craig has focused his work in Insurance Class actions, and
Complex litigation.
He is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania.
Casey M. Preston
Casey M. Preston concentrates on securities fraud and other complex litigation. He has
represented plaintiffs and defendants in both class actions and individual litigation involving
securities fraud, ERISA, real estate, consumer fraud, mass torts, and commercial disputes.
Some of the more significant cases in which Mr. Preston has been involved include: Fleming
Cos. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1530 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ($94 million settlement on behalf of
an investor class); CIGNA Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 2:02-8088 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ($93
million settlement on behalf of an investor class); Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
3:03-CV-0250-M (N.D. Tex. 2006) ($5.25 million settlement on behalf of an investor class); a
$4 million recovery for an investor defrauded through a PIPE transaction; Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 05-cv-01563 (D. Colo. 2007) ($1.5 million settlement on
behalf of an investor class).
Mr. Preston is originally from Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. He graduated from the Citadel in
1995 and the Villianova University School of Law in 2000.
Following graduation from law school, Mr. Preston clerked for the Hon. William J. Nealon of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Hon. Terrence R. Nealon
71
of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. Prior to joining Berger & Montague,
Mr. Preston also gained substantial experience in litigating complex commercial cases at Stevens
& Lee, P.C.
Mr. Preston is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. He is admitted to practice before the U.S.
Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Shoshana Savett
Shoshana Savett received a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1999. She graduated
from Temple Law School in 2003 and is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey. Ms. Savett is an associate in the securities department.
Shoshana worked on numerous class action that have achieved significant benefits on behalf of
the Class. These cases include: In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement); Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 2202-CC (Del. Ch.) representing certain shareholders of the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange in the Delaware Court of Chancery ($99 million settlement); In re Sepracor Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action no. 02-12235-MEL (D. Mass.)($52.5 million settlement
approved September 6, 2007)
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen is a member of Berger & Montague’s antitrust department.
Ms. Schalman-Bergen is a graduate of Harvard Law School (J.D. cum laude, 2007), where she
served as an executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. She is
also a graduate of Tufts University (B.A. summa cum laude, 2001).
Prior to joining Berger & Montague in 2009, Ms. Schalman-Bergen was an associate in the
litigation department of WolfBlock LLP. While at WolfBlock, Ms. Schalman-Bergen served as
the Shestack Public Interest Fellow, and divided her caseload between general commercial
litigation and HIV discrimination litigation on behalf of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania.
Ms. Schalman-Bergen is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania
Daniel Simons
Mr. Simons is a member of Berger & Montague’s Antitrust Department. He received a Bachelor
of Arts in Political Science, magna cum laude, from Yeshiva University in l997. In addition to
winning the Political Science departmental award two years running, Mr. Simons also garnered
three awards for scholastics and student leadership upon graduation.
He earned his J.D. with honors, at Temple Law School in May, 2000, where he headed three
student groups, served on Temple Law Review, and interned in the Health Care Fraud Unit of
72
the United States Attorney’s Office. Following graduation, he clerked for the Honorable Berle
M. Schiller of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He has also served as a volunteer in the
Philadelphia Reads Program.
Mr. Simons’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in the pharmaceutical and
health care sectors. He has worked on several highly-watched pieces of litigation, including In
re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 365 (D.D.C. 2007); In re DDAVP Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 585 F.3d 679 (2d Cir. 2009); and King Drug Co. v. Cephalon,
Inc., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 1221793 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2010). He has also co-authored a
chapter in The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law (2010),
entitled “Parties Entitled to Pursue a Claim.”
Mr. Simons is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to the
bar of the United States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Ninth, and
D.C. Circuits, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and for the District of New Jersey. He is a member of the American Bar Association and it
Antitrust Section. He helped found the Old York Road Revitalization Group – a project aimed at
commercial development of a collection of northern Philadelphia suburbs – and serves on its
governing board.
Molly Tack-Hooper
Molly Tack-Hooper is a graduate of New York University School of Law (J.D. 2009) and Brown
University (A.B. 2002). At NYU School of Law, Ms. Tack-Hooper served on the Moot Court
Board and the NYU Review of Law and Social Change, and received an Arthur Garfield Hays
Civil Liberties Fellowship and the John Perry Prize for dedication to civil rights. Before joining
Berger & Montague in April 2011, Ms. Tack-Hooper clerked for the Honorable Michael H.
Dolinger, U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of New York, and served as a Legal
Fellow at the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
Eugene R. Tompkins
Gene Tompkins graduated from the United States Merchant Marine Academy (B.S.M.E.) and the
New York University Graduate School of Business Administration (M.B.A) and Temple
University School of Law (J.D.). Mr. Tompkins concentrates on complex, technically-oriented
disputes and business-related matters under antitrust, securities and corporate governance areas
of federal and state law. His prior experience in numerous facets of the international
transportation and oil and gas industries complements his efforts in many of the areas
encountered in increasingly complex litigation.
Nick Urban
Nick Urban joined Berger & Montague’s antitrust department in September, 2009. Mr. Urban is
a 2009 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he was a Senior Editor for
73
the Journal of Law and Social Change. Mr. Urban graduated from the University of San Diego
in 2004 with a B.A. in Sociology.
Lane L. Vines
Lane L. Vines is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (B.B.A.-Accounting,
Graduated with Distinction, 1988) and Villanova University School of Law (J.D. 1997). During
law school, Mr. Vines was a member of the Villanova Law Review and served as a Managing
Editor of Outside Works. Prior to joining the Berger firm, Mr. Vines was a law clerk for the
Honorable James R. Melinson, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as several
federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a member of the
Villanova Law J. Williard O’Brien American Inn of Court. Mr. Vines joined the Berger firm in
1999 and concentrates his practice in the area of securities and complex commercial litigation.
James A. Wells
Mr. Wells is a senior associate in the Employment Law practice group. Mr. Wells has
represented employees working in a variety of fields in wage & hour cases as well as
discrimination lawsuits.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Wells worked at the Defender Association of Philadelphia as an
Assistant Public Defender. In that position, he represented indigent criminal defendants in bench
trials and before juries in the Major Trials Unit. Additionally, Mr. Wells spent time as an
Associate at Willig, Williams and Davidson, representing individual plaintiffs in sex and age
employment discrimination cases and whistleblower actions. While in law school at Temple,
Mr. Wells was a staff member and was published in the Temple International and Comparative
Law Journal.
Mr. Wells is currently representing several classes of employees at meat and poultry processing
facilities across the country in actions to recover unpaid wages and overtime for the time spent
donning and doffing protective clothing and equipment. He also represents homeowners for
damages caused by defective building materials in a nationwide consumer protection action.
Mr. Wells has previously represented plaintiffs in disability and race discrimination in
employment cases, and various other actions for overtime compensation.
Mr. Wells volunteers his time assisting homeowners facing foreclosure and serving as pro bono
counsel to a local bicycle advocacy and service organization.
74
OF COUNSEL:
Carey R. D’Avino
Mr. D’Avino is of counsel to Berger & Montague, P.C. in Philadelphia. He has practiced in the
field of international law for more than 20 years and his practice is currently concentrated in
international human rights class action litigation. He received a B.A., with honors, from Colgate
University and his J.D., with honors, from Emory University Law School, where he served as an
Editor, Emory Law Journal. He also earned his L.L.M. in Civil Trial Advocacy from Beasley
School of Law at Temple University. He is the inaugural John Henry Hobart Fellow in Ethics
and Social Justice at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and he is a member of the Board of
Directors of the American Anti-Slavery Group, a Boston based human rights foundation
dedicated to the eradication of slavery and forced labor around the world.
Mr. D’Avino is a member of the Bar in New York State and the United States Virgin Islands.
He is admitted to practice law in the United States Supreme Court, United States District Court
for the astern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, the Virgin Islands District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States
Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.
He served as class counsel in each of the following Holocaust related class actions: In re
Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation, No. 96 CV 4849; Helene Pollack, et al., v. Siemens A.G. et.
al., No. 98 CV 5489; Marta Cornell, et. al. v. Assicurazioni Generali S.p.a., et. al., No. 97 CV
2262; Watman et. al. v. Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Creditanstalt, et al., No. 98 CV 9186;
Burger-Fisher, et. al. v Degussa, No. 98 CV 3958; Jack Bressler et. al. v. Phillip Holzmann AG,
et. al., No. 98 CV 6335; Anna Gutwillig, et. al. v. Steyer-Daimler-Pusch A.G., 98 CV 6336 and
Kluge, et al. v. Raiffeisen Zentral, et, al., 00 CV 2851. He is an individual signatory of the
German and Austrian Holocaust settlement agreements including the Joint Statement
establishing the terms of the German Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future”
executed on July 17, 2000, the Joint Statement establishing the terms of the Austrian Fund
“Reconciliation, Peace and Cooperation” executed on October 24, 2000, and the Joint Statement
establishing the terms of the “Austrian General Settlement Fund”, on January 17, 2001.
Daniel R. Miller
Daniel R. Miller concentrates his practice on complex civil litigation, representing
whistleblowers in state and federal False Claim Act cases against companies or contractors who
have defrauded federal, state, or local governments, and representing individual and class
plaintiffs in consumer protection actions.
Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Miller was a Deputy Attorney General for the
Delaware Department of Justice for more than 16 years and tried more than 125 cases to jury
verdict. During his time with the government, Mr. Miller served on numerous national
75
negotiation and litigation teams comprised of state and federal prosecutors. Collectively, those
whistleblower cases returned more than $2 billion to state and federal treasuries.
Whistleblower (“Qui Tam”) cases are complex matters which often require extensive
communication and coordination with the United States Department of Justice, local United
States Attorneys Offices, all 50 state Attorneys General Offices, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Office of Inspector General, and numerous other federal and state agencies.
Now in private practice, Mr. Miller is able to provide his clients with extensive trial experience,
unparalleled insight into the personnel, structure, and function of these government entities, and
a complete understanding of the investigative sequences utilized by the federal and state
prosecutors who lead these cases.
Mr. Miller is the Immediate Past President of the National Association of Medicaid Fraud
Control Units (“NAMFCU”), an organization whose members were responsible for securing
more than 1,300 criminal convictions and returning more than $1.3 billion to the Medicaid
Program last year. As a member of NAMFCU’s Global Case Committee, Mr. Miller routinely
worked on large-scale fraud cases. Prior to serving as NAMFCU’s President, Mr. Miller was the
co-chair of NAMFCU’s Qui Tam Subcommittee where he coordinated communications and
litigation positions for all states which have enacted False Claims Acts. Through these various
roles, Mr. Miller helped execute a multi-year plan to increase the level of state involvement in
national fraud investigations and prosecutions. For example, Mr. Miller worked to successfully
create and implement a national repository for the storage, review, and use of tens of millions of
documents received from target companies. Moreover, Mr. Miller helped develop a robust
investigation-based training module for fraud prosecutors. Mr. Miller also co-created and
implemented a management structure for the evaluation, investigation, prosecution, and closure
of national fraud cases.
From 2003 through 2009, Mr. Miller also served as the Director of Delaware’s Medicaid Fraud
Control Unit. In that capacity, he often served as team leader in coordinating the investigation
and prosecution of health care provider fraud -- including cases involving physician groups,
nursing homes and hospitals -- with local, state, and federal authorities. These multi-disciplinary
teams of government lawyers, investigators, and data analysts returned many millions of dollars
to state and federal treasuries.
Mr. Miller is nationally recognized for his work in whistleblower cases under state and federal
False Claims Acts, and he has been a frequent speaker on these and other topics. Some of his
more recent speeches and presentations are listed below.
September, 2009
National Association of Medicaid Program Integrity Units – Annual Conference
“Use of Medicaid Data in Global Fraud Investigations”
76
July, 2009
6th National Pharmaceutical Company Guide to Off-Label Communications
“Identifying Enforcement Trends”
May, 2009
19th Annual ABA National Institute on Health Care Fraud
“State and Federal False Claims Act Practice and Procedure” and
“State Enforcement and Medicaid Fraud”
11th Annual Medicaid Rebates Conference
“The Role of the States in Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry”
March, 2009
1st Annual Summit on Disclosure, Transparency, and Aggregate Spend
“Assessing Disclosure as a Compliance Tool”
7th Annual Forum on Government Regulation of Prescription Drug Pricing
“Pricing-Related Government Enforcement”
Widener Law School Healthcare Compliance Program
“False Claims Act Update”
January, 2009
6th Annual Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress
“Government Perspective on Scientific Exchange and Drug Promotion”
December, 2008
Annual Winter Meeting, National Association of Attorneys General
“The Role of NAMFCU in Global Cases”
October, 2008
9th Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory Compliance Congress
“Post-Settlement Interactions with the Government”
10th Annual Guidelines for Disseminating Off-Label Information
“The Role of the States in Off-Label Investigations and Prosecutions”
Creating Compliant Financial Arrangements with Doctors and Hospitals
“Recent Cases Stemming from Questionable Financial Agreements”
September, 2008
1st Annual Forum on Off-Label Therapy
“The State Approach to Off-Label Enforcement”
77
June, 2008
7th Annual ABA Institute on Civil False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement
“Current and Future State Qui Tam Enforcement”
May, 2008
18th Annual ABA National Institute on Health Care Fraud
“Sharing of Information Among Government Prosecutors”
4th USDOJ Conference on Pharmaceutical and Device Fraud
“Best Price/Nominal Price Investigations and Prosecutions”
April, 2008
8th Annual National Forum on Fraud and Abuse in the Sale and Marketing of Drugs
“Off-Label Promotion: Risk Mitigation and Lessons Learned from Recent Settlements”
“Factoring New State Enforcement Priorities in the Fraud and Abuse Analysis”
March, 2008
Symposium on Healthcare Fraud Investigations
“Preventing and Defending FCA Violations in Healthcare and Qui Tam Lawsuits”
October, 2007
9th Annual Conference: Guidelines for Disseminating Off-Label Information
“Coordination Among Federal and State Agencies in Off-Label Enforcement”
September, 2007
7th Annual Taxpayers Against Fraud Conference
“Multi-Jurisdictional Prosecution of Qui TamCases”
May, 2007
State False Claims Summit
“The Interplay Between State Attorneys General and Federal Prosecutors”
Prior to serving as Director of the Medicaid Fraud Unit, Mr. Miller was a Deputy Attorney
General in the Criminal Division of the Delaware Department of Justice. During that time he
managed a large caseload and prosecuted hundreds of violent offenders, including rapists, armed
carjackers, and capital murderers.
Before becoming a prosecutor, Mr. Miller served as a judicial clerk for Delaware Superior Court
Judge Susan C. Del Pesco.
Mr. Miller graduated with honors from the University of Delaware in 1989, and Temple
University Law School in 1992. He is presently an adjunct professor at Temple Law, teaching
trial advocacy.
78
Roslyn G. Pollack
Roslyn G. Pollack is Counsel to the firm, concentrating on securities, qui tam, and other complex
civil litigation. Ms. Pollack is a graduate of the University of Florida, magna cum laude, where
she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She is
admitted to practice in both Pennsylvania and Florida as well as the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
She was formerly a partner in the Litigation Department of the Philadelphia firm of Cohen,
Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen where she specialized in commercial and corporate
litigation in such areas as banking, real estate, securities and ERISA. Ms. Pollack also served as
Associate General Counsel - Lead Attorney - Litigation for PECO Energy Company. She has
extensive trial experience in state and federal courts.
Ms. Pollack has lectured for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and has written on a variety of legal
topics. Formerly a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association Board of Governors and the
Pennsylvania Bar Association House of Delegates, Ms. Pollack is active in a number of
professional and civic organizations. She serves on the Commercial Panel of the American
Arbitration Association and as a judge pro tem for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
She is a member of the Forum of Executive Women.
Jay Robert Stiefel
Jay Robert Stiefel studied History at the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. with Distinction 1968,
General Honors Program, Dean’s List) and as a graduate student at Oxford University (Christ
Church, 1968-69), where he was elected Chairman of the Graduate Common Room, chaired the
Shakespeare at Stratford program and was a member of the Christ Church and Oxford University
Boat Clubs. His International Relations degree from the University of Pennsylvania (M.A. 1971)
was pursuant to an interdisciplinary program including courses in International Law at the Law
School and Economics at the Wharton School of Business. He was elected a member of the
Executive Committee of the International Relations Program of the Graduate School of Arts &
Sciences (1970-71).
Mr. Stiefel worked at the British House of Commons as a member of the Conservative
Parliamentary Power Committee’s Subcommittee on Amendments, chaired by Sir John Eden,
Bt., and as Parliamentary Personal Assistant to Sir Peter F.H. Emery, P.C. (1969-70). Other
residencies and work abroad, and nineteen years of linguistic studies, including at the Universités
de Bordeaux et de la Toulouse (French, Certificat d’Assiduité 1965), have made Mr. Stiefel
conversant in foreign languages, customs and practices. He was one of two U.S. Delegates to the
International Conference on the U.S. Bicentennial, Philadelphia (1970).
Mr. Stiefel graduated from the Dickinson School of Law (J.D. 1974) where he was an editor of
the Dickinson Law Review and a member of the Appellate Moot Court Board and of the Legal
79
Aid Society. He completed programs on Public and Private International Law at the Hague
Academy of International Law, The Netherlands, where he served as U.S. Embassy Liaison
(1972); and on the British legal system at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University (1997,
1998). He has lectured on law at Temple University and authored law review articles on
International and Constitutional Law. For his paper, “The Rights of the Accused Before Trial,”
delivered at Oxford University (1977), Mr. Stiefel was awarded le Prix des Anciens Presidents,
the top prize of the Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats (Young Lawyers International
Association), a bar association whose U.S. operations he was elected to head (1978). He
received the Outstanding Service Award of the Young Lawyers’ Section of the Philadelphia Bar
Association for his service on its Executive Committee (1981). He has also served on the PBA’s
Committees on International Law, Services to the Spanish-speaking Community, the Federal
Courts and Lawyers for the Arts.
Mr. Stiefel has played a lead or principal role in complex securities actions throughout the
country, in which many legal precedents were established and significant monetary and remedial
benefits achieved. These include, among others, Employee Solutions Securities Litigation,
Master File No. Civ-97-545-PHX-RGS (OMP) (D. Ariz.) (class settlement of in excess of $15
million); Rospatch Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:90-CV-806 et al. (W.D. Mich.)
(class settlement of in excess of $6.5 million); Long Island Lighting Company Securities
Litigation, 84-CIV-0588 (LDW) (E.D.N.Y.) (class settlement of in excess of $48.5 million);
Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation, M.D.L. 551 (W.D. Wash) (class
settlements of over $700 million); Charal v. Andes (re The Franklin Mint), C.A. Nos. 77-1725
and 78-1610 (E.D. Pa.) ($6 million class settlement); Dura-Bilt Corporation v. Chase Manhattan
Corp., 79 Civ. 4666, 71 Civ. 3800 (S.D.N.Y.); Berman v. HNC Mortgage & Realty Investors,
C.A. No. B78-111 (D.Conn.); AM International, Inc. Securities Litigation, M.D.L. No. 494
(S.D.N.Y.) (class settlements of cash and warrants valued at approximately $20 million);
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-1-83-1721 (S.D.
Ohio) (class settlement of $13.9 million); Consumers Power Company Securities Litigation, Civ.
Act. No. 83-CV-6448 AA(E.D. Mich); Oak Industries Securities Litigation, No. 83-0537-G(M)
(S.D. Cal.) (class settlement of in excess of $33 million); Lundy v. Interfirst Corporation, No. 384-0952H (N.D. Tex.) (class settlement of $6.7 million); and Council on Social Work Education,
Inc., et al. v. Texas Instruments Inc., et al., C.A. No. CA-83-1083-H (N.D. Tex.)(class settlement
of $12 million).
Mr. Stiefel has been a board member of various cultural and civic organizations in Philadelphia,
including the Philadelphia Chamber Orchestra, Historic Rittenhouse, Inc., the Oxford &
Cambridge Society, which he co-founded, and the Center City Residents’ Association, chairing
its Celebration of Center City Living (1995). He is also a shareholder of the Library Company of
Philadelphia and serves on the Advisory Board of the American Philosophical Society Library.
He is a member of the Numismatic & Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia. Mr. Stiefel’s
philanthropic interests include Independence Hall National Historical Park and various university
museums and libraries, for which he was inducted into the De La Salle Society (2001). His
sports are squash, tennis, and hiking. He is a member of the Philadelphia Club.
80
Mr. Stiefel is also an historian of early American commerce and the decorative arts. He has
lectured at Winterthur Museum, the American Philosophical Society, Oxford University, the
American Museum in Britain, and also before the Decorative Arts Trust, The Washington
Decorative Arts Forum, and the Alexandria Association, among other venues. Mr. Stiefel serves
on the Advisory Committee of the Delaware Antiques Show for Winterthur (1998-present). He
has been admitted to various educational programs of the Attingham Trust in Great Britain and
elsewhere (Summer School, 1996; and several Study Weeks since). Mr. Stiefel’s “Philadelphia
Cabinetmaking and Commerce, 1718-1753: the Account Book of John Head, Joiner” and “The
Head Account Book as Artifact” inaugurated the American Philosophical Society’s online
historical journal, the Library Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 1, new series (Winter 2001); and were the
subject of two feature articles: Lita Solis-Cohen, “Account Book Becomes Rosetta Stone for
Philadelphia Furniture,” Maine Antiques Digest (April 2001), and “The Cabinetmaker’s
Account,” Masterpiece (June 2001). Mr. Stiefel’s articles on Philadelphia’s colonial craftsmen
have appeared in various publications, including the Bulletin of the Pewter Collectors’ Club of
America (Winter 2002); the Catalogue of Antiques and Fine Art (Spring 2003 and 2004) and the
Magazine Antiques (August 2006).
Mr. Stiefel is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and before other
federal courts throughout the country.
Tyler E. Wren
Tyler E. Wren is a trial lawyer with over 35 years of experience in both the public and private
sectors.
Mr. Wren has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad spectrum of litigation
matters, including class actions, environmental, civil rights, commercial disputes, personal
injury, insurance coverage, election law, zoning and historical preservation matters and other
government affairs. Mr. Wren routinely appears in both state and federal courts, as well as
before local administrative agencies.
Mr. Wren graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a B.S. in Industrial
Management and obtained his law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law.
Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Wren served as staff attorney to the Committee
of Seventy, a local civic watchdog group. Mr. Wren then spent a decade in the Philadelphia City
Solicitor’s Office in various positions in which his litigation and counseling skills were
developed: Chief Assistant City Solicitor for Special Litigation and Appeals, Divisional Deputy
City Solicitor for the Environment, Counsel to the Philadelphia Board of Ethics and Counsel to
the Philadelphia Planning Commission.
After leaving government employ and before joining Berger & Montague in 2010, Mr. Wren was
in private practice, including nine years with the Sprague and Sprague firm, headed by nationally
recognized litigator Richard Sprague. Mr. Wren was also the editor and principal author,
Volumes 8-12 (Civil Litigation) of Dunlap-Hanna Pennsylvania Forms, 1987-1990.
81
Mr. Wren was recently named as one of Pennsylvania’s “Super Lawyers” in the area of
Administrative Law. Mr. Wren has for many years held an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell,
the highest rating available for both professional competence and ethical integrity.
A member of the Pennsylvania Bar since 1973, Mr. Wren is also admitted to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Wren is also a member of the
Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association.
Mr. Wren is also active in community affairs, serving as the elected Vice Chair of the East
Nantmeal Township Board of Supervisors (Chester County, PA) and a member of the board of
directors of the East Nantmeal Land Trust.
82
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Abbott A Leban
Abbott A. Leban joined Berger & Montague in 2004 as Senior Counsel in its Securities
Litigation Department. Since 2008, he has continued his association with the firm as Of Counsel
and resident attorney in the firm’s office in Wilmington, Delaware.
Mr. Leban is admitted to the practice of law in the District of Columbia, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware. He is also admitted in the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. District Courts
for Delaware and the Southern District of New York. He is a member of the American and the
Delaware State Bar Associations and was an original member of the National Association of
Public Pension Attorneys. His local associations include the Delaware Center for Justice, Inc.
and the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware.
Mr. Leban received his B.A. from Columbia College and the J.D. degree from Yale Law School.
He held a judicial clerkship in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and
continued in federal government service in Washington as an attorney in the (now defunct) U.S.
Civil Aeronautics Board; as an Assistant U. S. Attorney for D.C.; and on the professional staff of
U.S. Sen. Kenneth B. Keating (R.-N.Y.), ending as his Executive Assistant.
In 1965, Mr. Leban began a long career in the finance, insurance, and real estate (“FIRE”) sector.
In Equitable Life’s Law Department, he was the company’s first-time officer and counsel for
Federal Relations. At Colonial Penn Group, Inc., of Philadelphia (CPG), he was initially
President/COO of its New York-based life insurance subsidiary and later CPG’s Senior V.P. and
Corporate Secretary, with responsibilities for its legal, government relations, human resources,
and corporate and public affairs departments. With the taking effect of ERISA in 1974, he also
served as the chairman of the company’s pension trusts and supervised them in the early years of
the ERISA regime. In the early 1980s, Mr. Leban joined with another CPG executive in the
founding management of American Homestead, Inc., of Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, a mortgage
banking concern, which developed and pioneered in offering reverse mortgage products to the
“house-rich, cash-poor” segment of the senior population.
In 1987, the new administration of Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey appointed Mr. Leban
as the chief counsel of each of the three state-level public-employee retirement systems, with
then combined assets of approximately $20 billion. In addition to corporate governance
initiatives on behalf of the state and public school funds, he represented PSERS, as an ex officio
member, along with CalPERS, on the official equity committee in Chapter 11 proceedings, In re
Texaco, Inc., 81 B.R. 806 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988). That committee played a key role in the
settlement of the Pennzoil-Texaco lawsuit judgment and the inclusion of important governance
provisions in Texaco’s reorganization plan.
83
Mr. Leban left state government in 1991 to join the Philadelphia law firm now known as Blank
Rome. As chair of the firm’s Public Pension Fund Practice Group within its Corporate
Department, he concentrated his work on varied corporate, tax, fiduciary, litigation, and
legislative matters on behalf of both in-state and sister-state public pension funds. When his
colleagues, the resident litigation partners in Blank Rome’s Wilmington office, formed their own
firm in 1997, Mr. Leban joined them in Delaware soon after they commenced business. Among
other securities class actions in that period, he was a member of that firm’s litigation team as
counsel for co-lead plaintiff Colorado PERA in the Oxford Health Plans Litigation in the
Southern District of New York and for the Florida SBA as co-lead plaintiff in the
DaimlerChrysler Securities Litigation in the District Court for Delaware.
84
EXHIBIT 3
ERISA LITIGATION GROUP
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.—Seattle
Seattle, Washington 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.—New York
770 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (646) 495-6198
Keller Rohrback P.L.C.—Phoenix
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.—Santa Barbara
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
www.ERISAfraud.com
www.KRClassAction.com
LEADERS IN ERISA CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
KELLER ROHRBACK is the nation’s leading law
firm handling ERISA retirement plan litigation on
behalf of plaintiffs. Our ERISA Litigation Group has
been instrumental in pioneering this cutting-edge
field of law in the IKON, Lucent, and Enron ERISA
cases, the first large-scale ERISA 401(k) breach of
fiduciary duty lawsuits of their kind. We are widely
reported as an ERISA “powerhouse.”
On behalf of our clients, Keller Rohrback has
played a major role in establishing that ERISA’s
strict fiduciary duties apply to companies’
investment of employees’ retirement savings in the
stock of the employers. Our efforts have resulted in
numerous published decisions upholding plaintiffs’
ERISA claims, granting class certification, and
approving several multi-million dollar settlements. In
all, to date, Keller Rohrback has recovered over
$900 million for employees on behalf of their
retirement savings plans.
Federal courts throughout the country have
recognized Keller Rohrback’s qualifications to
vigorously pursue ERISA class action claims. Thus,
Keller Rohrback has served in a leadership position
in almost every major ERISA breach of fiduciary
duty case involving 401(k) and ESOP plans,
including ERISA litigation against the following
corporations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AIG
Bear Stearns Cos. Inc.
Beazer Homes USA
BellSouth
CIGNA
CMS Energy
Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
Countrywide Financial
Delphi
Dynegy
Enron
Fremont General Corp.
Global Crossing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
HealthSouth
Household Int’l
IndyMac
Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Lucent Technologies
Marsh & McLennan
Merck
Merrill Lynch
Mirant
Pfizer
Polaroid
Providian
Founded in 1919, today Keller
Rohrback has 60 attorneys and 84
staff members who provide expert
legal services to our clients
nationwide. We use cutting-edge
technology and case management
techniques in the preparation and
trial of complex cases. Our excellent
support staff includes in-house
programming personnel and
experienced paralegals who
contribute significantly to our ability
to effectively and efficiently litigate
complex class action cases
nationwide. The firm’s ERISA
Litigation Group regularly calls on
firm attorneys in other practice areas
for expertise in bankruptcy,
contracts, employment law,
executive compensation, corporate
transactions, financial institutions,
insurance coverage, mergers and
acquisitions, professional
malpractice, and securities
transactions. The firm’s in-house
access to these resources
distinguishes Keller Rohrback from
other class action firms and also
contributes to the firm’s success.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regions Financial Corp.
Southern Company
State Street
Syncor
Visteon
Wachovia Corp.
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Williams Companies
WorldCom
Xerox
Seattle │ Phoenix │ New York │ Santa Barbara
www.ERISAfraud.com
ERISA 401(k) and ESOP Cases
Keller Rohrback is proud to have an unparalleled track record of assisting our clients
allege highly technical claims, including the following: (1) failure to prudently and
loyally manage the plan and plan assets; (2) failure to provide complete and accurate
information regarding company stock to plan participants; and (3) failure to prudently
monitor plan fiduciaries. We are honored that courts nationwide have repeatedly
praised Keller Rohrback’s leadership and successful results in this highly complex and
rapidly developing area of law.
“[Keller Rohrback] has performed an important public service in this
action and has done so efficiently and with integrity . . . [Keller
Rohrback] has also worked creatively and diligently to obtain a
settlement from WorldCom in the context of complex and difficult
legal questions . . . [Keller Rohrback] should be appropriately
rewarded as an incentive for the further protection of employees
and their pension plans not only in this litigation but in all ERISA
actions.” In re WorldCom, Inc. ERISA Litig., 59 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
1170, 33 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2291 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2004).
“The Court finds that [Keller Rohrback] is experienced and qualified
counsel who is generally able to conduct the litigation as Lead
Counsel on behalf of the putative class. Keller Rohrback has
significant experience in ERISA litigation, serving as Co-Lead
Counsel in the Enron ERISA litigation, the Lucent ERISA litigation,
and the Providian ERISA litigation, and experience in complex
class action litigation in other areas of the law. Mr. Sarko’s
presentation at the August 26, 2002 hearing before the Court
evidences Keller Rohrback’s ability to adequately represent the
class.” In re Williams Cos. ERISA Litig., No. 02-153 (N.D. Okla.
Oct. 18, 2002) (order appointing Lead Counsel).
"Keller Rohrback presents the most compelling case for
appointment as interim lead class counsel based on . . . its
extensive experience handling ERISA class actions." In Re
Wachovia Corp. ERISA Litig., No. 08-5320, 2008 WL 5480534
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 2008).
2
www.ERISAfraud.com
Pioneering ERISA 401(k) and ESOP Cases
In re Enron Corp. ERISA Litigation, MDL No. 1446 (S.D. Tex.). Keller Rohrback
served as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action filed in the Southern District of Texas.
On September 30, 2003, Judge Melinda Harmon denied defendants’ numerous
motions to dismiss in a landmark decision that addressed in detail defendants’
obligations as ERISA fiduciaries, and upheld plaintiffs’ core ERISA claims. Plaintiffs
have achieved four partial settlements totaling more than $264 million in cash to the
Enron plans against Enron directors, officers and plan fiduciaries.
In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 01-03491 (D.N.J.). Keller
Rohrback was appointed Co-Lead Counsel in this class action brought on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Lucent defined contribution plans that invested in
Lucent stock. The complaint alleged that the defendants withheld and concealed
material information from participants, thereby encouraging participants and
beneficiaries to continue to make and to maintain substantial investments in company
stock and the plans. The settlement provided for, among other relief, the payment of
$69 million in cash and stock to the plan. Judge Joel Pisano approved the settlement
on December 12, 2003.
Whetman v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc., MDL No. 10-01318 (E.D. Pa.) The current
wave of 401(k) company stock cases began with Whetman v. IKON Office Solutions,
Inc.. In a first-of-its-kind complaint, we alleged that company stock was an imprudent
investment for the plan, that the fiduciaries of the plan failed to provide complete and
accurate information concerning company stock to the participants, and that they failed
to address their conflicts of interest. This case resulted in ground-breaking opinions in
the ERISA 401(k) area of law on motions to dismiss, class certification, approval of
securities settlements with a carve-out for ERISA claims, and approval of ERISA
settlements.
In re WorldCom, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 02-04816 (S.D.N.Y.). Keller Rohrback
served as Lead Counsel in this class action filed in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the WorldCom 401(k) Salary Savings
Plan. On June 17, 2003, Judge Denise Cote denied in part defendants’ motions to
dismiss and on October 4, 2004, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Settlements providing for injunctive relief and payments of over $48 million to the plan
were approved on October 26, 2004 and November 21, 2005.
Groundbreaking ERISA 401(k) and ESOP Settlements
Keller Rohrback’s qualifications to lead ERISA 401(k) and ESOP class actions is
nowhere more evident than in the highly favorable settlements it has achieved for the
3
www.ERISAfraud.com
benefit of employees in several of its nationally prominent cases. In addition to the
Enron, WorldCom, IKON, and Lucent settlements discussed above, these settlements
include:
In re AIG ERISA Litigation, No. 04-09387 (S.D.N.Y.). On December 12, 2006, the late
Judge John E. Sprizzo denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2008,
Judge Kevin T. Duffy, for Judge Sprizzo, issued final approval of the $25 million
settlement negotiated by the parties.
Alvidres v. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. 07-05810 (C.D. Cal.). On November
16, 2009, Judge John F. Walter granted final approval of the $55 million settlement.
In re Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 07-00952 (N.D. Ga.). On
November 15, 2010, Judge Richard W. Story granted final approval of the $5.5 million
settlement.
In re BellSouth Corporation ERISA Litigation, No. 02-02440 (N.D. Ga.). On March
4, 2004, Judge J. Owen Forrester denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On December
5, 2006, Judge Forrester approved a settlement that provided structural relief for the
plans valued at up to $90 million, plus attorneys fees and costs.
Buus, et al. v. WaMu Pension Plan, et al., No. 07-00903 (W.D. Wash.). The parties
to the litigation negotiated and executed a settlement agreement on June 29, 2010.
On October 29, 2010, the Court held a fairness hearing and approved the settlement of
$20 million as fair, reasonable and adequate, approved the notice and publication
notice and method of dissemination of such notices, approved the application for
attorneys’ fees and expenses, and approved the proposed plan of allocation and the
case contribution awards for the Named Plaintiffs.
In re CMS Energy ERISA Litigation, No. 02-72834 (E.D. Mich.). On March 31, 2004,
Judge George Caram Steeh denied defendants’ motions to dismiss. On December 27,
2004, Judge Steeh granted plantiffs’ motion for class certification and subsequently
approved the $28 million settlement negotiated by the parties.
Cokenour v. Household International, Inc., No. 02-07921 (N.D. Ill.). On March 31,
2004, Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan denied, in part, defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The case subsequently settled for $46.5 million in cash to the plan. The court approved
the settlement on November 22, 2004.
In re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 02-03076 (S.D. Tex.). On March 5, 2004,
the court denied, in part, defendants’ motions to dismiss. Subsequently, the parties
reached a settlement that provided for the payment of $30.75 million in cash to the
plan. On December 10, 2004, Judge Sim Lake approved the settlement.
4
www.ERISAfraud.com
In re Global Crossing Ltd. ERISA Litigation, No. 02-07453 (S.D.N.Y.). The Global
Crossing ERISA Litigation settlement provided for, among other relief, the payment of
$79 million to the plan. Judge Gerard Lynch approved the settlement on November 10,
2004.
In re The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ERISA Litigation, No. 03-02180 (N.D.
Ohio). On July 6, 2006, Judge John R. Adams denied defendants’ motions to dismiss.
On October 22, 2008, the Court issued final approval of the $8.375 million settlement.
In re HealthSouth Corp. ERISA Litigation, No. 03-01700 (N.D. Ala.). On June 28,
2006, Judge Karon Bowdre approved a settlement in the amount of $28.875 million,
with a possible additional $1 million from any HealthSouth recovery in the derivative
action.
In re IndyMac ERISA Litigation, No. 08-04579 (C.D.Cal.). On January 19, 2011,
Judge Dean Pregerson granted final approval of the $7 million settlement.
Lilly, et al. v. Oneida Ltd. Employee Benefits Admin. Committee, et al., No. 0700340 (N.D.N.Y.). On May 8, 2008, Judge Neal P. McCurn issued an order in which he
denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 4, 2010, the Court granted approval
of a $1.85 million settlement and entered an Order and Final Judgment.
In re Marsh ERISA Litigation, No. 04-8157, (S.D.N.Y.). On December 14, 2006, the
Honorable Shirley Wohl Kram issued an order in which she granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. The parties subsequently reached a
settlement in the amount of $35 million, which was approved by the Court on January
29, 2010.
In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, No. 0710268 (S.D.N.Y.). On August 21, 2009, Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted final approval of
the $75 million settlement in the ERISA action.
In re Mirant Corporation ERISA Litigation, No. 03-01027 (N.D. Ga.). On November
16, 2006, the Court approved the settlement, including a payment of $9.7 million in
cash to the plan for losses suffered by the certified settlement class.
In re Polaroid ERISA Litigation, No. 03-08335 (S.D.N.Y.). On March 31, 2005, Judge
William H. Pauley III granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On September 29, 2006, Judge Pauley granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
The parties subsequently reached a settlement in the amount of $15 million, which was
approved by the Court on June 25, 2007.
5
www.ERISAfraud.com
In re Providian Financial Corp. ERISA Litigation, No. 01-05027 (N.D. Cal.). The
Providian ERISA Litigation settlement provided for structural changes to the plan, as
well as the payment of $8.6 million in cash to the plan. The Court approved the
settlement on June 30, 2003.
Smith v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, No. 05-06187 (M.D.N.C.). The
Krispy Kreme ERISA Litigation settlement provided for structural changes to the plan,
as well as the payment of $4.75 million in cash. On January 10, 2007, Judge William L.
Osteen approved the settlement.
Spivey v. Southern Co., et al., No. 04-01912 (N.D. Ga.). On August 14, 2007, the
Court granted final approval of the settlement, including a payment of $15 million in
cash to the plan for losses suffered by the certified settlement class.
In re State Street Bank and Trust Co. ERISA Litigation, No. 07-08488 (S.D.N.Y.).
On February 19, 2010, Judge Richard J. Holwell granted final approval of the $89.75
million settlement in the ERISA action.
In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, No. 03-02446 (C.D. Cal.). On August 23, 2004, Judge
Baird denied, in part, defendants’ motions to dismiss. Judge Baird subsequently
granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 28, 2005. The case settled,
but was dismissed on summary judgment before the settlement could be approved. On
February 19, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s
decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s
order. On October 22, 2008, Judge R. Gary Klausner granted final approval of the
settlement, including a payment of $4 million in cash to the plan for losses suffered by
the certified class.
In re Visteon Corporation ERISA Litigation, No. 05-71205 (E.D. Mich.). On March 9,
2007, Judge Avern Cohn approved a settlement in the amount of $7.6 million.
In re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 07-01874 (W.D. Wash.). On
January 7, 2011, the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman granted final approval of
the $49 million settlement in the ERISA action.
In re Williams Companies ERISA Litigation, No. 02-00153 (N.D. Okla.). On
November 16, 2005, the Court approved the settlement for $55 million in cash, plus
equitable relief in the form of a covenant that Williams will not take any action to amend
the plan to (i) reduce the employer match thereunder below four percent prior to
January 1, 2011, or (ii) require that the employer match be restricted in company stock
prior to January 1, 2011.
6
www.ERISAfraud.com
In re Xerox Corporation ERISA Litigation, No. 02-01138 (D. Conn.). Since 2007,
Judge Alvin Thompson has issued two opinions denying in significant part defendants’
motions to dismiss. On April 14, 2009, Judge Thompson approved the $51 million
settlement negotiated by the parties.
Pending ERISA Cases
In addition to the cases listed above, Keller Rohrback has been appointed to a
leadership position in numerous other ongoing ERISA 401(k) and ESOP class actions.
Through these cases, Keller Rohrback has again and again demonstrated its expertise
in ERISA law, and its ability to vigorously, creatively, and successfully pursue
employees’ rights under ERISA. Keller Rohrback’s leading role in the development of
this law is unique and distinguishes the firm from any other in the country. Notable
pending cases include:
In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II, No. 08-05722
(S.D.N.Y.). On March 19, 2009, Keller Rohrback was appointed Interim Co-Lead
Counsel to represent the proposed class of participants and beneficiaries of the AIG
Incentive Savings Plan. On March 31, 2011, Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied in large
part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 08-02804 (S.D.N.Y.). On
December 29, 2008, Keller Rohrback was appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel to
represent the proposed class of participants and beneficiaries of The Bear Stearns
Cos. Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan. On April 20, 2009, Co-Lead Counsel filed
an amended consolidated complaint. On January 9, 2011, the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal as well as a motion to
alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint.
In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 09-00792 (M.D. Ala.). On
November 24, 2009, Judge Myron H. Thompson consolidated the related ERISA
actions and appointed Keller Rohrback Interim Co-Lead Counsel. On January 11,
2010, plaintiffs field an amended consolidated complaint.
In re Fremont General Corporation Litigation, No. 07-02693 (C.D. Cal.). On August
17, 2007, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper appointed Keller Rohrback sole Interim Lead
Counsel, and on May 29, 2008, Judge Cooper denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation for $21 million. On April 26,
2011, the Honorable Jacqueline Nguyen granted preliminary approval of the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
In re Merck & Co., Inc. “ERISA” Litigation, MDL No. 1658 (D.N.J.). On July 11,
2006, Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions
7
www.ERISAfraud.com
to dismiss. On February 9, 2009, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Judge Chelser certified a class consisting of:
[E]very person, other than Defendants, who was a participant in, or beneficiary
of, the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Savings & Security Plan, the Merck & Co.,
Inc. Employee Stock Purchase & Savings Plan, the Merck Puerto Rico
Employee Savings & Security Plan and the Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC
401(k) Savings Plan (collectively, the “Plans”) at any time between October 1,
1998 and September 30, 2004; and whose Plan accounts invested in the Merck
Common Stock Fund and/or Merck common stock; and who sustained a loss to
his or her Plan account as a result of the investment in the Merck Common
Stock Fund and/or Merck common stock; and who has not executed a
settlement agreement releasing these claims.
In re Pfizer ERISA Litigation, MDL No. 1688 (S.D.N.Y.). On October 21, 2005, the
Court appointed Keller Rohrback as sole Interim Lead Counsel. A consolidated class
action complaint was filed on June 5, 2006. On March 20, 2009, the Honorable Laura
T. Swain issued an order in which she denied in large part defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litigation, No. 08-2192 (W.D. Tenn.). On
October 8, 2008, the Honorable Samuel H. Mays, Jr. consolidated the various pending
ERISA cases and appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. On
March 9, 2010, Judge Mays issued an Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
on all disputed counts of Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint. On April 22, 2011, a
Scheduling Conference was held before Judge Mays, in which he set trial for March
18, 2013. On May 20, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint for Violation of ERISA.
In re Wachovia Corp. ERISA Litigation, No. 09-00262 (W.D.N.C.). On December
24,2008, Keller Rohrback was appointed Interim Lead Counsel, and on September 18,
2009, plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. The parties reached an agreement
to settle the litigation for $12.35 million. On March 2, 2011, the Honorable Martin
Reidinger granted preliminarily approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement.
Representative Securities Fraud Cases
In addition to its work in the ERISA arena, Keller Rohrback also has served as Lead or
Co-Lead Counsel in a number of securities fraud class action cases where it has
represented purchasers of securities.
In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99-01127 (C.D. Cal.). Keller
Rohrback served as Co-Lead Counsel in this securities fraud class action filed in the
8
www.ERISAfraud.com
Central District of California, Southern Division. The class achieved settlements
totaling $2.7 million.
In re Anicom, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00-04391 (N.D. Illinois). Keller Rohrback
was one of three counsel representing the State of Wisconsin Investment Board in this
securities fraud class action. Counsel achieved settlements on behalf of the class and
other parties in excess of $39 million, including a payment of $12.4 million directly from
one of the named defendants, described as “one of the largest payments obtained in
connection with allegations of securities and accounting fraud in recent times.” In all,
over 80% of the total recovery was obtained from sources other than Anicom’s
insurance policy.
In re Apple, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-04128 (N.D. Cal.). Keller Rohrback
served on the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee in the federal derivative shareholder
action against nominal defendant Apple Computer, Inc. and current and former officers
and members of Apple’s Board of Directors. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement arising from
the practice of backdating stock options granted between 1993 and 2001, which
practice diverted millions of dollars of corporate assets to Apple executives. Counsel
achieved a settlement that awarded $14 million to Plaintiffs—one of the largest cash
recoveries in a stock backdating case—and requires Apple to adopt a series of unique
and industry-leading corporate enhancements.
In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-05598 (N.D. Cal.). Keller
Rohrback was appointed Co-Lead Counsel in this federal derivative shareholder action
against nominal defendant Foundry Networks, Inc., and current and former officers and
members of Foundry’s Board of Directors. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement arising from the
practice of backdating stock options granted between 2000 and 2003, diverting millions
of dollars of corporate assets to Foundry executives. On February 20, 2009, the Court
entered an order approving settlement.
Getty, et al. v. Harmon, et al., No. 98-00178 (W.D. Wash.). Keller Rohrback served
as Lead Counsel in this securities fraud action filed in Western Washington federal
court involving a “Ponzi” scheme. Plaintiffs allege that at least one key person
responsible for this scheme was affiliated with SunAmerica Securities, which knew or
should have known that securities laws were being violated. The class achieved
settlements totaling $7 million.
In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 10-01318 (E.D.
Pa.). Keller Rohrback served as Co-Lead Counsel representing the City of
Philadelphia and eight other lead plaintiffs in this certified class action alleging
securities fraud. Class Counsel achieved the highest securities fraud settlement in the
9
www.ERISAfraud.com
history of the Court by settling with defendant IKON Office Solutions, Inc. for $111
million. At that time, the settlement was listed as one of the “largest settlements in
class-action securities-fraud lawsuits since Congress reformed securities litigation in
1995” by USA Today.
Lasky v. Brown, et al., No. 99-01035 (M.D. Fla.). Keller Rohrback served as Co-Lead
Counsel in this class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of Louisiana, on behalf of
individual shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired equity securities in
United Companies Financial Corporation between April 30, 1998 and February 2,
1999, inclusive. The class recovered $20.5 million in settlements.
In re Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 01-01950 (N.D. Ga.). Keller
Rohrback serves as Co-Lead Counsel in this case, in which plaintiffs allege that
defendants engaged in a course of fraudulent conduct by misrepresenting and omitting
material information pertaining to Scientific-Atlanta’s financial results and by engaging
in extensive channel stuffing in order to enable the company to meet its stated
earnings expectations.
In re WorldPort Comm., Inc., et al., No. 99-01817 (N.D. Ga.). This shareholder class
action was brought in Georgia federal court alleging securities fraud. Parties in this
case reached a $5.1 million settlement.
Other Representative Cases
In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation, No. 95-00193 (N.D. Ga.). This case was filed in the
Northern District of Georgia and resulted in a $50 million settlement. United States
District Judge Harold L. Murphy stated that the attorneys’ "efforts in this case to date
have demonstrated their great skill and ability" and that "the Court’s own observations
of Plaintiffs’ counsel support a determination that Plaintiffs’ counsel are highly
reputable and responsible attorneys."
In re Commercial Tissue Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 97-01189 (N.D.
Fla.). This antitrust case involved allegations of a nationwide price-fixing conspiracy
among the major manufacturers of facial tissue, toilet paper, paper towels, and related
paper products used in “away from home” settings, such as office buildings, hotels,
restaurants, and schools. Parties entered into a settlement agreement valued at $56.2
million in cash and coupons.
Cox, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., et al., MDL No. 00-01332 (D. Md.). Keller Rohrback
served on the Executive Committee of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in this class action
challenging Microsoft’s monopolistic practices. A class of direct purchasers of
operating system software achieved a settlement of $10.5 million in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
10
www.ERISAfraud.com
In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 10-01203 (E.D. Pa.). These cases involved numerous plaintiffs in
Washington and other states who were seeking medical monitoring and/or personal
injury compensation in relation to their ingestion of the prescription diet drugs Pondimin
and Phentermine (i.e. Fen-Phen) or Redux. Keller Rohrback served as class counsel
for a certified medical monitoring class of Washington patients who ingested these diet
drugs. In addition, the federal court judge in Philadelphia who supervised the national
settlement and litigation appointed Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback’s managing
partner, to serve as a member of the MDL 1203 Plaintiffs’ State Liaison Counsel
Committee. Keller Rohrback has represented numerous plaintiffs in pursuing individual
personal injury claims through the American Home Products’ Nationwide Class Action
Diet Drug Settlement or through individual lawsuits brought in state or federal courts.
Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., No. 00-1213 (W.D. Wash.). Keller Rohrback was proud
to represent the plaintiff class in the landmark opinion issued in this case. Judge
Robert Lasnik held that when an otherwise extensive health plan covers almost all
drugs and devices used by men, the exclusion of prescription contraceptives creates a
“gaping hole in the coverage offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and
immediate healthcare need uncovered. . . . Title VII requires employers to recognize
the differences between the sexes and provide equally comprehensive coverage, even
if that means providing additional benefits to cover women-only expenses.” Erickson v.
Bartell Drug Co.,141 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1277 (W.D. Wash. 2001). This monumental
decision has paved the way for implementation of non-discriminatory prescription
coverage in employee benefit plans nationwide.
In re the Exxon Valdez, No. 89-00095 (D. Alaska). Keller Rohrback represented
fishermen, Alaska natives, municipalities, and other injured plaintiffs in this mass tort
lawsuit arising out of the March 24, 1989, oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
After a three-month jury trial, plaintiffs obtained a judgment of $5 billion in punitive
damages—at the time the largest punitive damages verdict in U.S. history. Keller
Rohrback played a leadership role during discovery and at trial, and was chosen to
serve as administrator of both the Alyeska and Exxon Qualified Settlement Funds. The
amount of punitive damages was subsequently reduced by the United States Supreme
Court to $507.5 million, upon which interest was added. Keller Rohrback is currently
distributing the punitive damages and interest via the Exxon Qualified Settlement
Fund.
Ferko, et al. v. NASCAR, No. 02-00050 (E.D. Tex.). Keller Rohrback was counsel for
plaintiff in a lawsuit that charged NASCAR with breach of contract, unlawful
monopolization, and of conspiring with International Speedway Corporation ("ISC") to
restrain trade in violation of the antitrust laws. Keller Rohrback represented the
shareholders of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. ("SMI"), a publicly traded company that
owns six motorsports facilities, including Texas Motor Speedway ("TMS"). In May
2004, the parties reached a settlement agreement, pursuant to which, among other
11
www.ERISAfraud.com
things, ISC sold North Carolina Speedway to SMI for $100.4 million and NASCAR
sanctioned the Nextel Cup Series race previously hosted by Rockingham at TMS in the
2005 season. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.
Lawrence, et al. v. Phillip Morris Co., et al., No. 94-01494 (E.D.N.Y.). This
shareholder class action was brought in New York federal court alleging
misrepresentations regarding various inventory and trade loading practices used to
distort the timing of sales. This case was settled as part of a $115 million settlement.
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa.). The class actions in
this litigation were resolved with the recovery of more than $202 million for the benefit
of a class of businesses that purchased corrugated boxes and sheets.
In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 00-01328 (D. Minn.).
Keller Rohrback represented the plaintiff class in this case in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. About $124 million was recovered for the benefit of
a class of businesses which purchased food flavor enhancers from suppliers in the
U.S., Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Businesses that participated in the recovery received
nearly 200% of the amounts they were overcharged.
Rosted, et al. v. First USA Bank, No. 97-01482 (W.D. Wash.). This class action was
filed on behalf of owners of credit cards issued by First USA Bank who signed up for
“introductory rate” credit cards that were subject to false and deceptive “repricing.” A
settlement in this class action resulted in an automatic depricing benefit of over $50
million, plus over $36 million in benefits from other settlement-related offers.
Salloway v. Malt-O-Meal Co., No. 27-98-008931 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 4th Cir.). This
nationwide product liability class action arose out of a salmonella outbreak in the MaltO-Meal plant in Northfield, Minnesota. It was brought on behalf of all people who
became ill after eating cereal manufactured by Malt-O-Meal (under names such as
“Toasty-Os”). A class settlement was granted final approval in this case filed in
Hennepin County Court of Minnesota.
In re Vitamin Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1285 (D. D.C.). Keller Rohrback played
an extensive role in trial preparation in this case, one of the largest and most
successful antitrust cases in history. Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia certified two classes of businesses who
directly purchased bulk vitamins and were overcharged as a result of a ten year global
price-fixing and market allocation conspiracy. Through settlement and verdict,
recoveries were achieved, including four major settlements between certain vitamin
defendants and class plaintiffs. One landmark partial settlement totaled $1.1 billion.
12
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Lynn Lincoln Sarko
Lynn Lincoln Sarko has been the managing partner of Keller
Rohrback since 1991, where he leads the firm’s nationally
recognized Complex Litigation Group. An accomplished trial
lawyer, he regularly serves as lead counsel in multi-party and
class action lawsuits involving ERISA, employee benefits,
antitrust, and securities fraud claims. Mr. Sarko first came to
Seattle for a federal clerkship and returned after serving as
an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He
has been appointed lead or co-lead counsel in some of the
most important ERISA company stock cases, including
Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing. Additionally, Mr.
Sarko serves or has served as lead or co-lead counsel in
numerous other ERISA 401(k) plan, ESOP, and cash
balance cases, such as American International Group, Inc.,
Countrywide Financial Corp., Dell Inc., Delphi Corp., Ford Motor Co., Fremont General
Corp., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., ING, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Marsh & McLennan
Cos., Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Southern Co., State
Street Bank & Trust Co., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Xerox Corp., BellSouth, Dynegy, Inc.,
HealthSouth, Household International, Lucent Technologies, Inc., Mirant Corp.,
Polaroid, Williams Cos., Inc., and Visteon.
Mr. Sarko’s ERISA practice focuses on prosecuting matters raising sophisticated
ESOP and 401(k) plan issues, including ERISA preemption, fiduciary breaches,
imprudent investment of plan assets, blackout period and mapping violations, plan
asset diversification, prohibited transactions, directed trustee duties, and ERISA § 404
(c) defenses. He regularly appears in federal courts across the country, maintaining an
active national ERISA litigation practice.
In addition to his ERISA work, Mr. Sarko has prosecuted a variety of class action
lawsuits involving high profile matters including the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Microsoft
civil antitrust case, and Fen-Phen/Redux diet drug litigation, as well as notable civil
rights cases such as Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., establishing a woman’s right to
prescription contraceptive health coverage. Additionally, Mr. Sarko has litigated
numerous complex cases involving financial and accounting fraud, which have
included some of the nation’s largest accounting and investment firms.
Mr. Sarko received his undergraduate, business, and law degrees from the University
of Wisconsin, where he served as the editor-in-chief of the law review and was
selected by the faculty as the outstanding graduate of his law school class. Mr. Sarko
is a featured speaker at many continuing education seminars and conferences
nationwide.
All other bios listed alphabetically
13
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Laurie Ashton
Laurie Ashton is a member of Keller Rohrback P.L.C., based
in Phoenix, Arizona. Her practice emphasizes bankruptcy,
commercial, ERISA, and environmental litigation. Ms. Ashton
has been very active in the Arizona State Bar, having served
on the Ethics Committee for six years, and frequently lectures
on bankruptcy issues and other matters. Additionally, Ms.
Ashton has taught semester courses in Advanced Chapter 11
Bankruptcy and Lawyering Theory and Practice at the ASU
College of Law, and for several years running, has been a
guest lecturer on Chapter 11 at Harvard Law School. She is
the co-author of Arizona Legal Forms: Limited Liability
Companies and Partnerships, 1996-2002. Following law
school Ms. Ashton served as law clerk for the Honorable
Charles G. Case, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, for the District of
Arizona for two years. Ms. Ashton graduated from Arizona State University College of
Law, where she has twice returned as an Adjunct Professor to teach semester courses
in Lawyering Theory and Practice and Advanced Chapter 11. Ms. Ashton is admitted
to practice in Arizona and Colorado.
James A. Bloom
James Bloom is based in Keller Rohrback’s Phoenix office.
He practices in the firm’s nationally recognized complex litigation group, focusing on ERISA litigation, and has worked
on many landmark ERISA cases including In re State Street
Bank & Trust Co. ERISA Litigation and Johnson v. Couturier.
James graduated cum laude from Washington University in
St. Lous School of Law in 2008, where he was an executive
editor of the Washington University Law Review. He earned a
B.A. in History and Philosophy from Tulane University. James
also worked in the Civil Justice Clinic at Washington University, helping under-served individuals obtain needed legal
services.
14
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Gretchen Freeman Cappio
As a member of Keller Rohrback’s Complex Litigation Group,
Gretchen Cappio enjoys a diverse practice in the areas of
consumer protection, ERISA, mutual funds, and employment
litigation. She represents plaintiffs in several cutting-edge
complex cases, including In re Mattel, Inc., 588 F. Supp. 2d
1111 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (allowing the majority of consumers’
claims related to lead-contaminated and hazardous magnetic
toys to proceed), and Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588
F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding plaintiff’s claims alleging
that excessive fees associated with the Plan’s ten mutual
funds resulted in losses of tens of millions of dollars in
retirement savings, and that these funds—all retail off-theshelf funds rather than lower-fee institutional class funds,
most of which charged 12b-1 fees, and all of which paid
revenue sharing to the Plan’s trustee—were selected as a result of a flawed process).
Ms. Cappio serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re: Bisphenol-A (BPA)
Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1967 (W.D. Mo.),
consumer litigation in which plaintiffs assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, fraudulent and negligent omissions of material fact, and unjust
enrichment against certain plastic bottle manufacturers. Ms. Cappio also represented
plaintiffs in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (W.D. Wash. 2001), in
which the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik ruled that an employer violated Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act when its coverage failed to cover prescription contraceptives on an
equal basis as to other prescription drugs.
Ms. Cappio graduated from the University of Washington School of Law where she
served as the Executive Comments Editor of The Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal.
She earned her B.A. degree magna cum laude from Dartmouth College, where she
graduated Phi Beta Kappa and with honors. Ms. Cappio has been named a “Rising
Star” three times by Washington Law and Politics in its annual review of the state’s
legal professionals.
15
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
T. David Copley
David Copley enjoys the art of advocacy. His career has
encompassed product liability defense work, civil rights
litigation, real property disputes, employment law litigation
and counseling, mass torts, antitrust, breach of fiduciary duty
and ERISA, consumer protection, the preparation and trial of
several class action cases, and numerous appeals including,
most recently, In re Syncor ERISA Litigation. Mr. Copley
graduated from Northwestern University School of Law,
where he served as an editor of the Law Review. He earned
his B.A. at the University of Iowa, with Distinction and Honors
in Political Science and English. In 1985, Mr. Copley was
honored as Trial Lawyer of the Year for his work on behalf of
injured fishermen and other class members in In re the Exxon
Valdez oil spill litigation. He is admitted to practice in the
states of Washington and Arizona, in the United States District Courts of Western
Washington, Eastern Washington, Arizona, the Northern District of California, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme
Court.
Juli E. Farris
Juli Farris focuses on securities fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, and antitrust litigation in state and federal courts. She
has made significant contributions in cases such as In re
Catfish Antitrust Litigation; In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc.
Securities Litigation; In re Anicom, Inc. Securities Litigation;
Lasky v. Brown, et al. (United Companies securities
litigation); and In re Worldcom, Inc. ERISA Litigation, and
most recently, stock option backdating cases against
companies such as Apple Computer Inc., Zoran Corporation,
and others. Prior to joining Keller Rohrback in 1991, Ms.
Farris clerked for Judge E. Grady Jolly of the Fifth Circuit of
the United States Court of Appeals and practiced law at the
Washington, D.C. office of Sidley & Austin (now Sidley,
Austin, Brown & Wood). She earned her B.A. in English and
J.D. from Stanford University, where she was a Note Editor of the Stanford Law
Review. Ms. Farris is admitted to practice in the state and federal courts in
Washington, California, and the District of Columbia.
16
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Raymond J. Farrow
Ray Farrow’s practice focuses on complex litigation with an
emphasis on antitrust and consumer protection. Mr. Farrow
has played a leading role litigating antitrust claims involving
various Microsoft products, Thermus Aquaticus DNA
Polymerase (“Taq”), NASCAR, Vitamins, Intel
microprocessors, carbon black, and nurse compensation in
various cities across the country. Mr. Farrow has also
litigated claims for improperly withheld overtime in the various
industries as well as state security claims arising from an
alleged Ponzi scheme. Mr. Farrow graduated with high
honors from the University of Washington School of Law,
where he was articles editor of the Washington Law Review.
Prior to law school, he was a member of the Economics
faculty at Seattle University, the University of Washington,
and Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada. Mr. Farrow holds graduate degrees in
economics from the University of Essex (U.K.) and Princeton University. He currently
serves as Chair of the Consumer Protection, Antitrust & Unfair Business Practices
Section of the Washington State Bar Association. Mr. Farrow is licensed to practice in
Washington State and numerous Federal Courts around the country
Eric J. Fierro
Eric Fierro is based in Keller Rohrback’s Phoenix office and
practices in the firm’s nationally recognized complex litigation
group. He has broad experience in electronic discovery and
litigation support matters. While attending law school in the
evening, Mr. Fierro worked full-time for the U.S. Attorney’s
Office for the District of Massachusetts. There he provided
technical support for all criminal and civil units. In particular,
Mr. Fierro supported the electronic discovery and trial consulting needs for the healthcare fraud, securities fraud, and
other white collar crime units. He also worked as a part-time
summer law clerk for the computer crime and intellectual
property unit at the U.S. Attorney’s office. Before joining Keller Rohrback, Mr. Fierro was a managing consultant with
Huron Consulting Group, providing consultative services for
complex electronic discovery and document review matters.
17
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Laura R. Gerber
Laura R. Gerber joined Keller Rohrback in 2005 and
practices in the firm’s nationally recognized complex litigation
group where she handles a variety of cases in federal courts
across the United States. Laura’s practice focuses on class
actions and derivative cases, and ranges from ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty cases to mutual fund excessive fee cases to
consumer class actions concerning the safety of children’s
products. Laura graduated from the University of Washington
School of Law in 2003. While in law school, she concurrently
received an M.P.A. degree from the Daniel J. Evans School
of Public Affairs at the University of Washington and was a
member of the Moot Court Honor Board.
Gary Gotto
Gary Gotto is a member of Keller Rohrback P.L.C., based in
Phoenix, Arizona. Since joining the firm's Complex Litigation
Group in 2002, Mr. Gotto has held leadership positions in
many matters of national prominence involving claims of
financial misconduct and fiduciary imprudence, including
class action litigation involving Enron, Xerox Corp., Merrill
Lynch, Delphi, CMS Energy Corp., Dynegy, Global Crossing,
WorldCom, IKON Office Solutions, State Street Bank & Trust,
and Principal Financial Group. The aggregate recoveries for
our clients in these matters exceeds $650 million. He has
currently involved in several matters involving claims of
negligence or fraud involving mortgage-backed securities and
other financial products. In his nearly thirty year career, Mr.
Gotto has had extensive experience in securities and
financial matters, both from a compliance and litigation perspective. Mr. Gotto also has
substantial experience with complex Chapter 11 bankruptcy matters, which has proven
invaluable in cases in which defendants are also debtors in bankruptcy. He chaired the
Arizona State Bar Subcommittee on Revising the Limited Partnership Act and coauthored Arizona Legal Forms: Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships. Mr.
Gotto speaks and teaches regularly on a number of topics, including an annual real
estate bankruptcy case study presented at Harvard Law School. He earned his J.D.
from Arizona State University summa cum laude, where he was a member of the Order
of the Coif and the Special Projects Editor of the Arizona State Law Journal. Mr. Gotto
received his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania cum laude. He has been
admitted to practice in the state of Arizona since 1982.
18
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Benjamin Gould
Benjamin Gould practices in Keller Rohrback’s nationally
recognized complex litigation group, where he has helped to
litigate ERISA fiduciary breach, cash balance pension plan,
and excessive fee cases, as well as consumer protection
cases. He is a graduate of Yale Law School, where he was
an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Prior to joining Keller
Rohrback, he worked as a Legal Fellow of the ACLU Drug
Law Reform Project, litigating cases related to drug policy
and civil rights. He has also served as a clerk to the Hon.
Diana E. Murphy of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit and the Hon. Betty B. Fletcher of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, Mr.
Gould received a 2010 Burton Award for Legal Achievement
for the article, “The Continuing Applicability of Rule 23(b)(1)
to ERISA Actions for Breach of Fiduciary Duty,” which was published in Pension &
Benefits Daily on August 31, 2009.
Gary D. Greenwald
Before joining Keller Rohrback’s Phoenix office in 2006, Gary
Greenwald practiced in Columbus, Ohio, where he was the
senior litigation partner for the firms of Schottenstein, Zox, &
Dunn and Shayne & Greenwald. He has a broad range of
experience as a commercial litigator, having tried more than
200 cases in the federal and state courts across the U.S. Mr.
Greenwald’s trial experience includes securities litigation,
ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims, trademark litigation,
trade secrecy claims, professional malpractice, and a wide
range of contract and real estate disputes. He spent five
years as an Adjunct Professor of Trial Law Practice at the
Ohio State University College of Law and has been a
frequent speaker on the subject of Employee Stock
Ownership Plans. Mr. Greenwald received his B.A. from
Miami University and his J.D. from Ohio State University College of Law.
19
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Amy N. L. Hanson
Amy N. L Hanson’s practice is focused on class action and
other complex litigation, including dangerous drugs, ERISA
breach of fiduciary duty, and antitrust cases. Her practice is
national in scope and includes representation of clients in
both state and federal trial courts and on appeal. In this
capacity, she has successfully represented numerous
patients who suffered heart valve injuries in dangerous drug
cases against Wyeth, which were resolved either in
conjunction with a $4.75 billion nationwide class settlement or
through resolutions outside of that nationwide class
settlement relating to the prescription drugs Pondimin and/or
Redux. Additionally, she is currently representing numerous
patients who suffered heart attacks or strokes in dangerous
drug cases against Merck & Co., Inc. who are now
participating in the $4.85 billion national settlement relating to the prescription drug
Vioxx, in In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.), where she
also serves on the Consumer Claims Committee of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.
She is also representing numerous employees who have lost hard-earned retirement
savings in In re Pfizer ERISA Litigation, MDL 1688 (S.D.N.Y), in which Keller Rohrback
L.L.P. serves as sole lead counsel for the plaintiffs. She earned her B.A. degree
summa cum laude in Economics and Political Science from the University of
Minnesota. She is licensed to practice in Washington and Wisconsin and in the United
States District Courts of Western Washington, Eastern Washington, Eastern Michigan,
and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
20
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Ron Kilgard
Mr. Kilgard is a Phoenix native and a founding member of
Keller Rohrback, P.L.C., based in Phoenix, Arizona. In over
thirty years of practice, he has litigated a broad array of
commercial matters for both plaintiffs and defendants, in both
state and federal courts. In the last decade he has been
extensively involved in litigating cases on behalf of pension
plan participants, involving claims of financial and fiduciary
misconduct. In particular, he has been actively involved in
several national class actions arising under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) involving the plans
of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Xerox, Merrill Lynch,
Marsh McLennan, and many others. Mr. Kilgard is also
involved in non-ERISA pension plan cases concerning a
“church plan” in Minnesota and a “governmental plan” in
Arizona. He has served on the Arizona State Bar’s Civil Practice and Procedure
Committee and is a founding member of the Arizona State Bar’s Class Action
Committee. He is also a frequent speaker at seminars, for both lawyers and judges, on
litigation and pension plan issues. Mr. Kilgard received bachelor’s and master’s
degrees from Harvard before returning home to Arizona for law school. He graduated
from the A.S.U. College of Law as the Editor-In-Chief of the law review and was
selected by faculty as the outstanding graduate of his class. Upon earning his law
degree, Mr. Kilgard clerked for the Hon. Mary Schroeder on the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals before entering private practice. He has been admitted in Arizona since 1979.
Sarah H. Kimberly
Sarah Kimberly’s practice focuses on complex ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty litigation. She has successfully litigated
numerous class actions, including Alvidres v. Countrywide
Financial Corp. Ms. Kimberly is also actively involved in In re
IndyMac ERISA Litigation, In re Fremont General Corp.
Litigation, and In re Marsh ERISA Litigation. Ms. Kimberly
graduated from The George Washington University Law
School, where she worked as a legal fellow in a community
legal clinic and as a law clerk in the National Security Section
of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Columbia. Prior to law school, Ms. Kimberly worked as an
editor at a major publishing company in Boston. She earned
her B.A. in Art History from Dartmouth College, and is
admitted to practice in Washington State and the Western District of Washington. Ms.
Kimberly is also a member of the Washington State, King County, and American Bar
Associations, as well as Washington Women Lawyers.
21
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
David J. Ko
David Ko practices in Keller Rohrback’s nationally recognized
complex litigation group, where he represents plaintiffs primarily in the areas of consumer protection and ERISA class
action litigation. Prior to joining the firm, David completed a
two year clerkship for the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez,
United States District Judge in the Western District of Washington. After earning his J.D at Seattle University School of
Law, David obtained an LL.M. in Taxation at the University of
Washington, where he represented low-income individuals
against the IRS in the Federal Tax Clinic. During law school,
he served as a Rule 9 intern for a local public defender’s office, and also interned at a civil litigation firm. David received
the top grade in his class in Constitutional Law and Legal
Writing II, and was selected to the National Order of the Barristers for excellence in oral advocacy.
Cari Campen Laufenberg
Cari Campen Laufenberg’s practice focuses on complex
litigation with an emphasis on ERISA litigation. She has
made significant contributions in cases such as In re Marsh
ERISA Litigation, In re Williams Cos. ERISA Litigation, In re
HealthSouth Corp. ERISA Litigation, and In re Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Co. ERISA Litigation. Ms. Laufenberg earned a
J.D. and Masters of Public Administration from the University
of Washington. During law school, she served as a judicial
extern for U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs
Rothstein. Ms. Laufenberg received her B.A. from the
University of California, San Diego in Art History and
Criticism. She is admitted to the bar of the State of
Washington and the U.S. District Courts for the Western and
Eastern Districts of Washington. She is a member of the King
County Bar Association, Federal Bar Association, American Bar Association, American
Association for Justice, and Washington Women Lawyers. Ms. Laufenberg was
recognized in 2008 and 2009 as a “Rising Star” by Washington Law and Politics in its
annual review of the State’s legal professionals.
22
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Elizabeth A. Leland
Beth Leland’s practice focuses on securities and investment
fraud litigation, as well as ERISA breach of fiduciary duty
class action cases. She has served as lead counsel in
numerous complex cases that have resulted in multimillion
dollar settlements. Ms. Leland has more than fifteen years of
experience litigating complex cases arising from investment
fraud at both the trial and appellate levels, and is also
experienced in consumer protection, mass tort, and antitrust
litigation. Ms. Leland has made significant contributions in
securities and ERISA cases such as the In re Apple, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, In re Anicom, Inc. Securities Litigation,
In re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation, In re IKON Office
Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, In re Visteon Corporation ERISA
Litigation and the In re Xerox Corporation ERISA Litigation. She is an active member
of the King County, Washington State, and American Bar Associations, including the
American Bar Association’s Section of Labor & Employment Law. She earned her B.A.
in Business Administration with concentrations in Finance and Business Economics
from the University of Washington and graduated cum laude from the University of
Puget Sound School of Law. Ms. Leland is admitted to practice in Washington State
and Federal Courts, as well as the Ninth and other Circuits across the country.
Tana Lin
Tana Lin’s practice includes representing employees in
ERISA breach of fiduciary duty class actions, mutual fund
shareholders in suits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
investment advisors in violation of the Investment Company
Act, and nurses in cases alleging that hospitals depressed
their wages in violation of the Sherman Act. Ms. Lin began
her career as a trial attorney with the Public Defender Service
for the District of Columbia. She then joined and became a
senior trial attorney with the Employment Litigation Section of
the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of
Justice and, subsequently, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. She has prosecuted employment
discrimination cases against governmental entities and
private corporations such as Wal-Mart. Ms. Lin also
developed and implemented impact projects to address systemic problems affecting
the poor as the litigation coordinator for the Michigan Poverty Law Program. She
received her A.B. with Distinction from Cornell University and her J.D. from New York
University School of Law, where she was a Root-Tilden-Snow Scholar.
23
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Derek W. Loeser
Derek Loeser is a partner in the firm’s Complex Litigation
Group. His practice focuses on ERISA class action, securities
fraud, and investment mismanagement cases, which he has
litigated throughout the country. He has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for employees, retirees, and retirement
plans, as well as institutional investors. In addition to his work
on cases that have been resolved, including Enron, WorldCom,
Countrywide, and Washington Mutual, Mr. Loeser currently
serves as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in several large-scale
ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases, and represents
institutional investors in mortgage-backed securities cases
brought against Wall Street banks and other financial
institutions under state blue sky and federal securities laws.
Mr. Loeser is a member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Labor &
Employment Law and the Employee Benefits Committee as a Plaintiff attorney, and is
a frequent speaker at national ERISA conferences. Before joining Keller Rohrback in
2002, he clerked for the Hon. Michael R. Hogan, United States District Court, District of
Oregon, and was a trial attorney in the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil
Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Mr.
Loeser obtained his B.A. from Middlebury College, where he graduated summa cum
laude, with highest departmental honors, and as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He
graduated with honors from the University of Washington School of Law. Mr. Loeser
was named in 2007, 2008, and 2009 as a “Super Lawyer” among civil litigators and
recognized in 2005 and 2006 as a “Rising Star” by Washington Law and Politics
magazine in its annual review of the State’s legal profession. Mr. Loeser was named a
recipient of the 2010 Burton Award for Legal Achievement for the article, "The
Continuing Applicability of Rule 23(b)(1) to ERISA Actions for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty," which was published in Pension & Benefits Daily on August 31, 2009. Mr.
Loeser also co-authored the article “The Case Against the Presumption of Prudence,”
which was published in BNA Pension & Benefits Daily, Sept. 10, 2010 (174 PBD,
9/10/10).
He is admitted to practice in Washington State, United States District Courts for the
Western and Eastern Districts of Washington, the Eastern District of Michigan,
Northern District of Illinois, United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth,
Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, and on a pro hac vice basis in federal district
courts throughout the country.
24
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Gretchen S. Obrist
Gretchen Obrist joined Keller Rohrback’s complex litigation
group in 2007. She has a broad federal court practice.
Ms. Obrist has litigated ERISA fiduciary breach, cash
balance pension plan, and excessive fee cases, as well
as antitrust, RICO, consumer protection, and torts
claims. While Ms. O b r is t p rim a ri l y re p re s e n t s
p la in t if f s , s h e h a s a ls o represented defendants and
third parties in complex cases. She has made significant
contributions in Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., In Re Bear
Stearns Cos. Inc. ERISA Litigation, the Washington Mutual
and J.P. Morgan pension plan litigations, In re Dry Max
Pampers Litigation, and the firm’s mortgage-related practice
area. Prior to joining Keller Rohrback, Ms. Obrist worked for
two years as a law clerk to the Hon. John C. Coughenour,
U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington. Ms. Obrist earned her
J.D. from the University of Nebraska, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Nebraska
Law Review. During law school, Ms. Obrist worked at a public defender’s office
and the Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition. She also has
worked on legal issues generated by welfare reform. Ms. Obrist was named a
“Rising Star” by Washington Law and Politics in 2010. She is admitted to practice in
Washington State.
25
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
David S. Preminger
David Preminger is a partner in the firm’s Complex
Litigation Group. His practice focuses on ERISA class
action cases as well as individual benefit claims. He has
been the lead counsel or co-counsel on numerous ERISA
class action, breach of fiduciary duty cases with multimillion
dollar settlements. While perhaps divulging too much, Mr.
Preminger has been litigating ERISA cases on behalf of
employees and retirees since the Act’s passage in 1974.
He also has extensive experience litigating anti-trust, real
estate and general commercial and corporate matters. Mr.
Preminger speaks frequently on issues concerning
employee benefits litigation and is a former co-chair of the
Fiduciary Responsibility Subcommittee of the Labor and
Employment Section of the American Bar Association and
was also previously the co-chair of the Subcommittee on ERISA Preemption and the
Subcommittee on ERISA Reporting and Disclosure. Mr. Preminger has also served on
the Employee Benefits Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York
and on that Association Committee on Legal Problems of the Elderly of which he was
the chair of the Subcommittee on Pension and Welfare Benefit Plans. Mr. Preminger is
also a senior editor of Employee Benefits Law (BNA), a widely used treatise on the
subject, and has written law review articles on topics concerning ERISA as well. Mr.
Preminger is also a charter member of the American College of Employee Benefits
Counsel. Criteria for membership include at least 20 years of employee benefit
experience including significant writing, lecturing and public service and recognition of
the member by his or her peers for expertise in the field and intellectual excellence.
He has also been reognized as a Suyper Lawyer in the field of employee benefits for
the last several years. Prior to joining Keller Rohrback, Mr. Preminger was a partner at
Rosen Preminger &Bloom LLP where his practice concentrated on ERISA litigation.
Mr. Preminger was previously a Supervisory Trial Attorney for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, a Senior Attorney with Legal Services for the Elderly Poor
and a Reginald Heber Smith Fellow with Brooklyn Legal Services.
Education and Admissions
Mr. Preminger received his B.A. degree in mathematics from Rutgers University in
New Brunswick, NJ, and his law degree at New York University School of Law where
he was a member of the Journal of International Law & Politics. He is admitted to the
bar of the State of New York State and to the United States Supreme Court, the United
States Courts of Appeal for the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and District of
Columbia
Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Western and
Northern Districts of New York.
26
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Erin M. Riley
Erin Riley’s practice focuses on ERISA breach of fiduciary
duty litigation. She has successfully litigated numerous class
actions, including In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ERISA
Litigation. Ms. Riley is also actively involved in In re
Washington Mutual, Inc., et al. ERISA Litigation, In re
IndyMac ERISA Litigation, and In re Wachovia Corp. ERISA
Litigation. She graduated cum laude from the University of
Wisconsin School of Law and was a managing editor of the
Wisconsin Law Review. She received her B.A. in French and
History from Gonzaga University, where she graduated cum
laude. Ms. Riley is licensed to practice in both Washington
and Wisconsin and is a member of the American Bar
Association’s Section of Labor & Employment Law and the
Employee Benefits Committee as a plaintiff attorney. Ms.
Riley was recognized in 2009 as a “Rising Star” by Washington Law and Politics in its
annual review of the State’s legal professionals and co-authored the article “The Case
Against the Presumption of Prudence,” which was published in BNA Pension &
Benefits Daily, Sept. 10, 2010 (174 PBD, 9/10/10).
27
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Karin B. Swope
Karin Swope practices in the firm’s nationally recognized
complex litigation group. Karin’s practice focuses on ERISA
and consumer class actions. Prior to joining the firm, Karin
litigated commercial cases, primarily in the areas of
intellectual property, and business disputes. She also has
significant experience in responding to government
enforcement activities, including white collar criminal
prosecutions, federal civil enforcement actions, and
government investigations, and has counseled clients on
internal corporate investigations.
Karin is an Associate Editor of the American Bar Association
Tort, Trial, and Insurance Practice Law Journal. She is also
an adjunct professor at Seattle University School of Law
where she teaches in the Art Law Clinic. She is a frequent speaker for Washington
State Bar Association CLE programs.
Karin clerked for the Hon. John C. Coughenour, United States District Court, District of
Western Washington from 1993 to 1995, and for the Hon. Robert E. Cowen, United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1995 to 1996. She graduated Phi
Beta Kappa with a B.A. in English and Political Science from Amherst College in 1987
and earned her J.D. from Columbia University School of Law in 1993, where she was
Executive Articles Editor for the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, and a Harlan
Fiske Stone Scholar and Paul Bernstein Award recipient. She has been recognized as
a “Rising Star” by Washington Law and Politics Magazine.
28
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Havila Unrein
Havila Unrein practices in Keller Rohrback’s nationally
recognized complex litigation group. Havila received a
concurrent J.D./LL.M. (Tax), with honors, from the University
of Washington School of Law in 2008. During law school,
Havila provided tax and business advice to low-income
entrepreneurs and high-tech start-ups as a student in the
Entrepreneurial Law Clinic. She also served as an extern to
the Hon. Stephanie Joannides of the Anchorage Superior
Court. Prior to law school, Havila worked and studied abroad
in Russia, Azerbaijan, and the Czech Republic. She received
her B.A. in Russian Area Studies from Dartmouth College,
where she graduated magna cum laude.
Margaret E. Wetherald
Margie Wetherald is a partner of Keller Rohrback and serves
on the firm’s executive committee. Throughout her practice,
Ms. Wetherald has handled complex litigation in multiple
state and federal jurisdictions with a concentration on
commercial insurance coverage and bad faith, ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty, and class action litigation. Ms. Wetherald
has also handled mass tort litigation involving transmission of
AIDS to hemophiliacs through blood. She graduated from
Cornell Law School. Ms. Wetherald taught at the Columbus
School of Law at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.
from 1983 to 1985. She chaired the Northwest Environmental
Claims association at various times over a ten-year period
and has been a frequent author and speaker on insurance
coverage issues. She is admitted to practice in the United
States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the
United States District Courts for Eastern and Western Washington and in the State
Courts in Washington and Oregon.
29
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Amy Williams-Derry
Since joining Keller Rohrback’s Complex Litigation Group in
2005, Amy Williams-Derry has spearheaded numerous class
action lawsuits for the firm, specializing in ERISA litigation on
behalf of retirement plan beneficiaries and consumer
protection cases. She has litigated at both the trial and
appellate levels, and has successfully represented clients in
mediation and arbitration before the National Labor Relations
Board, the National Association of Securities Dealers, and
the New York Stock Exchange. Prior to joining Keller
Rohrback, Ms. Williams-Derry litigated in both the private and
non-profit sectors, with a diverse background in corporate
and environmental matters. Ms. Williams-Derry earned her
A.B with honors from Brown University and her J.D. from the
University of Virginia, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of
the Virginia Environmental Law Journal. She is admitted to practice in the Western and
Eastern Districts of Washington, the Eastern District of Michigan, and before the
Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. Washington Law & Politics magazine has
named Ms. Williams-Derry a “Rising Star” among civil litigators every year from 2003
through 2009.
30
www.ERISAfraud.com
BIOGRAPHIES
Additional Keller Rohrback attorneys working with the ERISA Litigation Group:
Corporate
Banking
Securities
Stephen R. Boatwright*
Alicia M. Corbett*
Alicia Corbett*
Alicia M. Corbett*
Glen P. Garrison
Glen P. Garrison
Rob J. Crichton
Scott C. Henderson
Thomas A. Sterken
Juli E. Farris
Amy E. Hughes
Glen P. Garrison
Robert S. Over
Elizabeth A. Leland
Thomas A. Sterken
Bankruptcy
Robert S. Over
Benson D. Wong
John T. Mellen
William C. Smart
Amy Phillips
Michael D. Woerner
Contracts
Employment Law
Insurance Coverage
Rob J. Crichton
Ian S. Birk
Chloethiel W. DeWeese
Mark A. Griffin
Rob J. Crichton
Maureen M. Falecki
Benjamin J. Lantz
Benjamin J. Lantz
Irene M. Hecht
John T. Mellen
William C. Smart
Michael G. Howard
Amy Phillips
Benson D. Wong
David J. Russell
David J. Russell
Margaret E. Wetherald
Mark D. Samson*
William C. Smart
Professional Malpractice
John Mellen
*Admitted to practice in the State of Arizona only.
31
www.ERISAfraud.com
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
NASHVILLE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Judge John T. Nixon
ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL
This litigation involves consolidated actions asserting claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
(“ERISA”), with respect to the Long-Term Investment Plan (the “Plan”), a 401(k) plan
sponsored by Nortel Networks, Inc. The Named Plaintiffs1 filed the operative Second Amended
Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2005. A Stipulation of Settlement last dated July 26, 2011,
was filed with the Court on _____________, 2011.
The Named Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed Defendants William Kerr, David L.
Burn, Oswald D’Mello, MaryAnne Pahapill, and Tracey Vickruck, with prejudice. The
proposed Settlement would resolve this action as to all parties remaining before the Court.
On _____________, 2011, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement, Preliminarily Certifying a Settlement Class, Approving Class Notice, and Setting a
Fairness Hearing (“Preliminary Approval Order”). Before the Court are: (1) Named Plaintiffs’
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of Allocation and Certification of Settlement
1
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the
Stipulation of Settlement.
1
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
Class and (2) Named Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Case Contribution
Awards.
The Court has received proof of mailing of the Notice and publication of the Publication
Notice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. A hearing was held on
_____________, 2011, to (i) determine whether to grant final approval of the Settlement and the
Plan of Allocation; (ii) determine whether to award the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses
and Case Contribution Compensation; and (iii) rule upon such other matters as the Court might
deem proper.
The Settlement has already received the approval of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware administering In re Nortel Networks Inc., et al., Case No. 09-10138
(KG), and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice administering IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF
COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 09-CL-7950.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, all Class
Members, and all Settling Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e).
2.
The Court hereby approves and confirms the Settlement embodied in the
Stipulation of Settlement as being in all respects a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement and
compromise of the action negotiated at arms’ length, adopts the Stipulation of Settlement as its
judgment, and orders that the Stipulation of Settlement shall be herewith effective, binding, and
enforced according to its terms and conditions.
Among the factors considered by the Court in concluding that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate are that: (1) cases involving investment of ERISA plan assets in
2
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
company stock represent an unsettled and developing area of the law; (2) the Settling Defendants
have asserted numerous substantive defenses, as well as a counterclaim; and (3) the Settlement
removes the risks, delay, and costs to the Plan and the Class associated with continued litigation
and the difficult matter of calculating damages by delivering significant and assured economic
benefit to the Class Members.
3.
The Court specifically approves the Plan of Allocation set forth in paragraph 8 of
the Stipulation of Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
4.
The Court determines that the Settlement has been negotiated vigorously and at
arms’ length by the Named Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel on behalf of the Class and further finds
that, at all times, the Named Plaintiffs have acted independently, that their interests are identical
to the interests of the Class Members, and that the Named Plaintiffs have at all times adequately
represented the Class.
5.
The Court determines that the Notice and the Publication Notice transmitted to
the Class, pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, were the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and included individual notice to all Class Members who could be identified and
located through reasonable efforts. The Notice and the Publication Notice provided valid, due,
and sufficient notice of these proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the
Settlement described in the Stipulation of Settlement, to all persons entitled to such notice, and
such notice has fully satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process.
6.
The Court confirms that this action can properly proceed as a class action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(b)(1) and (2). Specifically, the Court finds that (a) the number of Class
Members is so numerous that joinder of them is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and
fact common to the Class; (c) the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
3
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
Class; (d) the Named Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class; and
that (e) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of
(i) inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct
for the Settling Defendants or (ii) adjudications with respect to Class Members which would as a
practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other Class Members.
7.
The Court hereby confirms the certification of the action as a class action for
settlement purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(b)(1) and (2), with the Class being
defined as follows:
All persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan and who
held Nortel stock in their 401(k) individual accounts at any time from
March 7, 2000, through January 1, 2008.
Excluded from the Class are (i) the Settling Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families
of each of the Settling Defendants; and (iii) the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity.
8.
Named Plaintiff James Kauffman, Michael Zafarano, and Carol Felts will
continue serving as class representatives for the Class. The firms Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC; Berger & Montague, PC; and Keller Rohrback, LLP will continue serving as
Lead Counsel for the Class.
9.
The Court hereby dismisses all pending claims and counterclaims between the
Named Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and the Settling Defendants with prejudice and without
taxation of costs in favor of or against any party.
10.
The Court awards attorneys’ fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, to be paid from
the Gross Settlement Fund pursuant to the common fund doctrine, in the amount of
$________________ for fees and $________________ for expenses. Lead Counsel shall
allocate the award of attorneys’ fees among plaintiffs’ counsel in the manner in which Lead
4
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
Counsel, in their sole discretion, believe reflects the contributions of such counsel to the
prosecution of this action.
11.
The Court further awards to each of the Named Plaintiffs $10,000 in case
contribution compensation. The Court awards an additional amount of $10,852 to Named
Plaintiff Carol Felts to compensate her for the severance she declined under the Nortel Networks
Severance Allowance Plan in order to participate as a Named Plaintiff in this action.
12.
Upon the approval of the Settlement becoming final, (i) all members of the Class
on behalf of themselves, their personal representatives, heirs, executors, successors and assigns,
will release the Settling Defendants, the Released Defendants, the Underwriter (including,
without limitation, their past and present trustees, directors, officers, employees, auditors,
advisors, agents, principals, attorneys, predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, affiliates and
subsidiaries) and all Plan fiduciaries or alleged Plan fiduciaries, from all Released Claims, and
(ii) each Settling Defendant and each Counter-plaintiff in the Nortel ERISA Litigation will
release each member of the Settlement Class (including their past and present trustees, attorneys,
predecessors, and successors) from all Released Claims.
13.
The Named Plaintiffs, all Class Members, the Settling Defendants, the Plan, and
the Plan’s fiduciaries are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or
prosecuting, either directly, indirectly, or in a representative capacity, any other action in any
court or any other forum asserting any of the Released Claims against any of the Released
Parties.
14.
All parties are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from the institution and
prosecution, either directly, indirectly, or in a representative capacity, of any actions against any
of the Released Parties, the Settlement Administrator, or their respective counsel with respect to
5
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
(i) any act, omission, or determination of Lead Counsel, the Escrow Agent, or the Claims
Administrator, or any of their respective designees or agents, in connection with the
administration of the Settlement or otherwise; (ii) the management, investment, or distribution of
the Gross Settlement Fund; (iii) the Plan of Allocation; (iv) the determination, administration,
calculation, or payment of any claims asserted against the Gross Settlement Fund; (v) any losses
suffered by, or fluctuations in the value of, the Gross Settlement Fund; or (vi) the payment or
withholding of any Taxes, expenses and/or costs incurred in connection with the taxation of the
Gross Settlement Fund or the filing of any returns.
15.
Provided that the Plan and the Settlement Administrator follow the Plan of
Allocation, all of the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members are hereby permanently barred and
enjoined from the institution and prosecution, either directly, indirectly, or in a representative
capacity, of any claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), related in any
way to the Plan of Allocation or any distributions made pursuant thereto.
16.
Under no circumstances shall this Order be construed, deemed, or used as an
admission, concession, or declaration by or against any of the Named Plaintiffs, Class Members,
or Settling Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability. This Court makes no such
finding or determination. Neither the Stipulation of Settlement nor the proceedings in
connection therewith shall be received into evidence for any purpose, except as may be
necessary to enforce or consummate the Stipulation of Settlement.
17.
This Order is a final judgment in the action as to all claims and counterclaims
between the Named Plaintiffs, the Class, the Plan, and the Settling Defendants.
18.
Without affecting the finality of this Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal, the
Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of implementing the Stipulation of Settlement and
6
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
reserves the power to enter additional orders to effectuate the fair and orderly administration and
consummation of the Stipulation of Settlement and to resolve any and all disputes arising
thereunder.
19.
If the Settlement Administrator has not completed all calculations necessary to
determine the Individual Claim Amount for each Authorized Claimant by _______________,
then the Settlement Administrator shall file a status report with the Court setting forth the reason
such calculations have not been completed in accordance with paragraph 8.5(e) of the Stipulation
of Settlement.
20.
Pursuant to paragraph 9.3 of the Stipulation of Settlement, if for some reason the
Settlement is terminated or does not reach the Effective Date under the terms of the Stipulation
of Settlement, this Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal shall become null and void, and shall
be without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the Settlement, all of whom shall be restored to
their respective positions existing immediately prior to the execution of the Stipulation of
Settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ day of ______________, 2011.
HONORABLE JOHN T. NIXON
United States District Court Judge
7
{000458/02211/00207931.DOCX / Ver.1}
EXHIBIT C
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
NASHVILLE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Judge John T. Nixon
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT,
PRELIMINARILY CERTIFYING A SETTLEMENT CLASS,
APPROVING CLASS NOTICE, AND SETTING A FAIRNESS HEARING
This litigation involves consolidated actions asserting claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
(“ERISA”), with respect to the Long-Term Investment Plan (the “Plan”), a 401(k) plan
sponsored by Nortel Networks, Inc.
Presented to the Court for preliminary approval is a Settlement whose terms are set out in
a Stipulation of Settlement last dated July 26, 2011, executed by counsel on behalf of the Named
Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants.1
The Settlement would resolve all claims and counterclaims between Named Plaintiffs
James Kauffman, Michael Zafarano, and Carol Felts, on behalf of the Plan, themselves, and the
Class, and Settling Defendants Nortel Networks Corporation (“NNC”), Nortel Networks Limited
(“NNL”) and Nortel Networks Inc. (“NNI” and together with NNC and NNL, “Nortel”), and
James J. Blanchard, John Edward Cleghorn, L. Yves Fortier, Robert Alexander Ingram, John
1
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the
Stipulation of Settlement.
1
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
Andrew Roth, Guylaine Saucier, Sherwood Hubbard Smith, Jr., Lynton Ronald Wilson, Dr.
Manfred Bischoff, Robert Ellis Brown, John P. Manley, Richard David McCormick, William
Arthur Owens, Harry Jonathan Pearce, Katharine B. Stevenson, Nicholas DeRoma, William J.
Donovan, and John M. Doolittle, Mary Cross, and Frank A. Dunn.
The Court has considered the proposed Settlement to determine, among other things,
whether to certify a class for settlement purposes and whether the Settlement is sufficient to
warrant the issuance of notice to members of the Class. Upon reviewing the Stipulation of
Settlement and the Named Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement,
Preliminarily Certifying a Settlement Class, Approving Class Notice, and Setting a Fairness
Hearing, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. Class Findings: The Court preliminarily finds that the requirements of the
United States Constitution, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and any other applicable laws have
been met as to the “Class” defined below, in that:
a. The Class is cohesive and well defined;
b. The members of the Class are ascertainable from records kept with
respect to the Plan, and the members of the Class are so numerous that their joinder before the
Court would be impracticable;
c. Based on the record in this litigation, the Court preliminarily finds that
there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Class;
d. Based on the record in this litigation showing that the Settling
Defendants engaged in conduct affecting members of the Class in a uniform manner, the Court
finds that the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class;
2
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
e. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the Class in that (i) the interests of Named Plaintiffs and the nature of their alleged claims are
consistent with those of the members of the Class; (ii) there appear to be no conflicts between or
among Named Plaintiffs and the Class; and (iii) Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class
are represented by qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting
large, complicated ERISA class actions; and
f. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class
would create a risk of (i) inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual Class members
that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the claims
asserted in the Nortel ERISA Action and/or (ii) adjudications as to individual Class members that
would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other Class members not parties
to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede the ability of those persons to protect their
interests.
2. Class Certification: Based on the findings set out in paragraph 1 above, the
Court preliminarily certifies the following class (the “Class”) for settlement purposes under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (2):
All persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan and who
held Nortel stock in their 401(k) individual accounts at any time from
March 7, 2000, through January 1, 2008.
Excluded from the Class are (i) the Settling Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families
of each of the Settling Defendants; and (iii) the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity.
3. Class Representation: The Court appoints Named Plaintiffs James Kauffman,
Michael Zafarano, and Carol Felts as class representatives for the Class. The Court also appoints
3
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
the firms Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC; Berger & Montague, PC; and Keller Rohrback,
LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class.
4. Conditional Nature of Class Certification: This preliminary certification of
the Class is solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement. If the Settlement is terminated or
does not reach the Effective Date under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the
preliminary certification of the Class shall become null and void, and the settling parties shall be
returned to the status each occupied before entry of this Order without prejudice to any legal
argument, position, or privilege that any of the settling parties might have asserted but for the
Settlement.
5. Preliminary Findings Regarding Proposed Settlement: The Court
preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement should be approved as (a) fair, reasonable and
adequate; (b) the product of serious, informed, arm’s length, and non-collusive negotiations; (c)
having no obvious deficiencies; (d) not improperly granting preferential treatment to Class
representatives or segments of the Class; (e) falling within the range of possible approval; and (f)
warranting notice to Class members of a formal fairness hearing, at which evidence may be
presented in support of and in opposition to the proposed Settlement.
6. Fairness Hearing: A hearing is scheduled for ___________________, 2011
(the “Fairness Hearing”), to determine, among other things:
a. whether the Class should be finally certified, for settlement purposes, as
a class action;
b. whether the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate;
4
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
c. whether all claims and counterclaims in the litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement;
d. whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the
Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved;
e. whether the Notice and the Publication Notice and the means of
disseminating same pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement (i) are appropriate and reasonable
and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice and (ii) meet
all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law;
f. whether to approve the application for attorneys’ fees and expenses by
Lead Counsel;
g. whether to approve the application for Case Contribution Compensation
for the Named Plaintiffs;
h. how to resolve any timely and proper objections to the Settlement, the
application for attorneys’ fees and expenses, or the application for Case Contribution
Compensation for the Named Plaintiffs; and
i. any other matters the Court may deem appropriate.
7. Notice to Class: The settling parties have presented to the Court proposed
forms of Notice and Publication Notice, which were attached to the Stipulation of Settlement as
Exhibits C-1 and C-2. With respect to the form of such Notice and Publication Notice, the Court
finds that they fairly and adequately: (a) describe the terms and effect of the Settlement; (b)
notify the Class concerning the proposed Plan of Allocation; (c) notify the Class that Lead
Counsel will request an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, as well as case contribution
awards for the Named Plaintiffs, from the Gross Settlement Fund; (d) give notice with respect to
5
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
the proposed release of Released Claims; (e) give notice of the time and place of the Fairness
Hearing; and (f) describe how members of the Class may object to approval of the Settlement.
The settling parties have proposed the following manner of disseminating the Notice and
Publication Notice to members of the Class, and the Court finds that such proposed manner of
dissemination is appropriate under the circumstances and directs that Lead Counsel shall:
a. By no later than forty-five (45) days before the Fairness Hearing, cause
the Notice, with such non-substantive modifications thereto as may be agreed upon by the
settling parties, to be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of
each person within the Class who can be identified and located by reasonable effort. Nortel or
the Plan shall provide the Settlement Administrator with information for this purpose in
accordance with paragraph 3.10 of the Stipulation of Settlement;
b. By no later than forty-five (45) days before the Fairness Hearing, cause
the Publication Notice, with such non-substantive modifications thereto as may be agreed upon
by the settling parties, to be published on at least one occasion in ______________ and
______________; and
c. By no later than forty-five (45) days before the Fairness Hearing, cause
the Notice to be published on the website identified in the Publication Notice.
At or before the Fairness Hearing, Lead Counsel shall file with the Court a proof of
timely compliance with the foregoing mailing and publication requirements.
8. Injunction: Pending the final determination of the fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy of the Settlement, the Settling Defendants and all members of the Class are
preliminarily enjoined from instituting or commencing any action against one another based on
the Released Claims defined in the Stipulation of Settlement.
6
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
9. Objections to Settlement: All of the following persons shall be referred to
herein as “Objectors”: (a) any member of the Class who objects to the fairness, reasonableness,
or adequacy of the Settlement, to the Plan of Allocation, to any term of the Stipulation of
Settlement, to the proposed attorneys’ fees and expenses, or to any request for Case Contribution
Compensation for the Named Plaintiffs and (b) any person who would be bound by the release of
Released Claims and who objects to approval of the release.
Any Objector must file with the Court a statement of his, her, or its objection(s),
specifying the reason(s), if any, for each such objection made, including any legal support and/or
evidence that such Objector wishes to bring to the Court’s attention or introduce in support of
such objection. The Objector must also serve the objection and all supporting law and/or
evidence to Lead Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendants.
The Objector and his, her, or its attorney (if any) must both file the objection with the
Court and serve it upon counsel listed below so as to be received no later than fourteen (14)
calendar days before the date of the Fairness Hearing. If an Objector hires an attorney to
represent him, her, or it for the purpose of making an objection pursuant to this paragraph, the
attorney must both file a notice of appearance with the Court and serve it upon counsel listed
below so as to be received no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the date of the
Fairness Hearing.
The Objector and/or the Objector’s attorney may make filings with the Court by mail and
service upon counsel by mail or fax as follows:
To the Court:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee
7
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
Nashville, TN 37203
To Lead Counsel:
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Fax: 602-248-2822
Berger & Montague, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Fax: 215-875-4604
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC
227 2nd Ave. N., 4th Floor
Nashville, TN 37201
Fax: 615-255-5419
To counsel for Settling Defendants:
Jackson Lewis LLP
650 Poydras, Suite 1900
Fax: 504-208-1759
Any member of the Class or other person who does not timely file and serve a written
objection complying with the terms of this paragraph shall be deemed to have waived, and shall
be forever foreclosed from raising, any objection, and any untimely objection shall be barred.
10. Appearance at Fairness Hearing: An Objector’s attendance at the Fairness
Hearing is not necessary; however, an Objector who files and serves a timely, written objection
in accordance with paragraph 9 above may appear at the Fairness Hearing either in person or
through counsel retained at the Objector’s expense. Objectors or their attorneys intending to
appear at the Fairness Hearing must both file with the Court and serve upon counsel listed above,
8
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
so as to be received no later than fourteen calendar (14) days before the date of the Fairness
Hearing, a notice of intention to appear setting forth the name, address, and telephone number of
the Objector (and, if applicable, the name, address and telephone number of the Objector’s
attorney). Filing with the Court may be effected by mail, and service upon counsel may be
effected by mail or fax. Any Objector who does not timely file and serve a notice of intention to
appear in accordance with this paragraph shall not be permitted to appear at the Fairness
Hearing, except for good cause shown.
11. Notice Expenses: Lead Counsel may pay from the Gross Settlement Fund
deposited in the Escrow Account up to $250,000 for actual reasonable costs of notice to Class
members and for settlement administration without further order of the Court.
12. Appointment of Administrator: This Court appoints Heffler, Radetich &
Saitta, LLP, as Settlement Administrator to perform duties including but not limited to provision
of notice to the Settlement Class, calculation of Individual Claim Amounts, and preparation of or
provision of information for tax-related documents.
13. Service of Papers: Settling Defendants’ counsel and Lead Counsel shall
promptly furnish each other with copies of any and all objections and notices of intention to
appear at the Fairness Hearing that come into their possession.
14. Termination of Settlement: This preliminary approval of the Settlement
shall become null and void, and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the
Settlement, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions existing immediately prior
to the execution of the Stipulation of Settlement, if the Settlement is terminated or does not reach
the Effective Date under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
9
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
15. Use of Order: Under no circumstances shall this Order be construed, deemed,
or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or against any of the Named Plaintiffs,
members of the Class, or Settling Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, breach or liability. Nor
shall the Order be construed, deemed, or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or
against any of the Named Plaintiffs, members of the Class, or Settling Defendants that their
claims or counterclaims lack merit or that the relief requested in the Nortel ERISA Action is
inappropriate, improper or unavailable, or as a waiver by any party of any defenses or claims he,
she, or it may have.
IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ day of ______________, 2011.
HONORABLE JOHN T. NIXON
United States District Court Judge
10
{000458/02211/00207935.DOCX / Ver.1}
EXHIBIT C-1
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
NASHVILLE DIVISION
In Re Nortel Networks Corp. “ERISA” Litigation
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ERISA CLASS ACTION,
MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
AND NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS,
AND FAIRNESS HEARING
Your legal rights might be affected if you are:
(a) a participant whether active, inactive or retired, in the Long-Term Investment Plan (the
“Plan”), a 401(k) plan sponsored by Nortel Networks, Inc., who held Nortel stock in your 401(k)
individual account at any time from March 7, 2000, through January 1, 2008.
or
(b) a beneficiary, alternate payee (including a spouse of deceased Plan participant),
representative, or successor-in-interest to a person described in clause (a).
IF YOU ARE DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) OR (b) ABOVE, YOU MAY BE A
MEMBER OF THE CLASS. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND
COMPLETELY. A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. THIS IS NOT A
SOLICITATION.
This notice (“Notice”) advises you of a proposed settlement (the “Settlement”) of a class action
lawsuit brought by James Kauffman, Michael Zafarano, and Carol Felts (the “Named
Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class described herein (the
“Class”) against Settling Defendants Nortel Networks Corporation (“NNC”), Nortel Networks
Limited (“NNL”) and Nortel Networks Inc. (“NNI” and together with NNC and NNL, “Nortel”),
and James J. Blanchard, John Edward Cleghorn, L. Yves Fortier, Robert Alexander Ingram, John
Andrew Roth, Guylaine Saucier, Sherwood Hubbard Smith, Jr., Lynton Ronald Wilson, Dr.
Manfred Bischoff, Robert Ellis Brown, John P. Manley, Richard David McCormick, William
Arthur Owens, Harry Jonathan Pearce, Katharine B. Stevenson, Nicholas DeRoma, William J.
Donovan, and John M. Doolittle, Mary Cross and Frank A. Dunn.
The Named Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants are referred to herein as the “Settling Parties.”
The litigation is referred to as the “Nortel ERISA Action.” The United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee (the “Court”) has preliminarily approved the Settlement and
scheduled a hearing to evaluate the fairness and adequacy of the Settlement. At that hearing, the
Court will consider the Named Plaintiffs’ (1) motion for final approval of the Settlement and for
1
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
certification of the Class for settlement purposes and (2) motion for an award of attorneys’ fees
and expenses and for case contributions awards for the Named Plaintiffs.
That hearing, before the Honorable John T. Nixon, has been scheduled for ____________, at
_________m. in Courtroom ______ of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203. The terms of the Settlement are contained in a
Stipulation of Settlement, a copy of which is available at www._________________.com or by
contacting Lead Counsel for the Class identified below. Capitalized terms used in this Notice and
not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Stipulation of Settlement. The
Settlement will provide cash proceeds to the Plan, which will be allocated to the accounts of the
members of the Class. The Settlement is summarized below.
Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel for the Class (“Lead
Counsel”):
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-248-0088
1622 Locust Street
Phone: 800-424-6690
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: 615-254-8801
Please direct questions to Lead Counsel, not to the Court. Additional information
regarding the Settlement is available at www._________________.com.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS TO WHOM THIS NOTICE IS
ADDRESSED, THE SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. YOU DO NOT
HAVE TO APPEAR IN COURT, AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY
IN THIS CASE. IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLEMENT AND YOU
RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS NOTICE IN THE MAIL, YOU NEED NOT DO
ANYTHING. IF YOU DISAPPROVE, YOU MAY OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURES DESCRIBED BELOW.
2
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
ACTIONS YOU MAY TAKE IN THE SETTLEMENT
NO ACTION IS NECESSARY TO RECEIVE If the Settlement is approved by the Court and
BENEFITS IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
you received this Notice in the mail, you are a
NOTICE IN THE MAIL.
member of the Class, and you do not need to
do anything in order to receive a benefit. The
portion, if any, of the Net Settlement Fund to
be allocated to you will be calculated as part of
the implementation of the Settlement.
If you are a current participant in the Plan and
you received this Notice in the mail, any share
of the Net Settlement Fund to which you are
entitled will be credited to your Plan account.
If you are not a current Plan participant and
you received this Notice in the mail, an
account will be set up for you which will be
credited with your share of the Net Settlement
Fund.
If you have not received this Notice in the mail
but you believe you are a member of the Class
described on Page 1, you should contact the
Settlement Administrator at ___________
before _____________, 2011, and provide it
with your name and address and the reasons
you believe you are in the Class.
YOU CAN OBJECT (NO LATER THAN
__________________).
If you wish to object to any part of the
Settlement, including the requests for
attorneys’ fees and expenses and Case
Contribution Compensation to the Named
Plaintiffs, you can write to the Court and
counsel and explain why you do not like the
Settlement.
YOU CAN GO TO THE HEARING ON
__________________.
If you have submitted a written objection and
notice to appear to the Court and counsel, as
explained below, you can ask to speak in Court
about the fairness of the Settlement.
3
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT .................................................................................................5
BASIC INFORMATION...............................................................................................................6
1. Why did I receive this Notice package? ......................................................................................6
2. What is the lawsuit about? What has happened so far? ..............................................................7
3. Why is this case a class action? ...................................................................................................8
4. Why is there a Proposed Settlement? ..........................................................................................8
5. How do I know whether I am a member of the Class? ...............................................................8
6. What does the Settlement provide?..............................................................................................8
7. What will be my share of the Settlement? ...................................................................................9
8. How would I receive my portion of the Settlement? .................................................................10
9. When would I receive my Settlement benefit? ..........................................................................10
10. Can I exclude myself from the Settlement? ............................................................................10
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU ...............................................................................10
11. Do I have a lawyer in the case? ...............................................................................................10
12. How will the lawyers be paid? ................................................................................................11
OBJECTIONS .............................................................................................................................11
13. How do I raise any objection I have to the Settlement? ..........................................................11
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING ...................................................................................12
14. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement? ..........................12
15. Do I have to come to the hearing? ...........................................................................................13
16. May I speak at the hearing? .....................................................................................................13
IF YOU DO NOTHING ..............................................................................................................13
17. What happens if I do nothing at all? .......................................................................................13
OBTAINING FURTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................13
18. How can I obtain further information? ....................................................................................13
4
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
As described in more detail below, and in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the
case concerns allegations that defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), in connection with the holding of
Nortel stock in the Plan. Copies of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and other
documents filed in this Nortel ERISA Action are available at www._________________.com.
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT
The Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to those participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who
are identified as members of the Class and whose current mailing addresses have been
ascertained after reasonable efforts and based upon the reasonably accessible records maintained
by the Plan and/or the Plan Administrator. The Net Settlement Fund, which will consist of a
Gross Settlement Fund of $21,500,000, less certain amounts set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement and described herein (including expenses associated with notice to the Class, Courtapproved attorneys’ fees and expenses, Court-approved Case Contribution Compensation for the
Named Plaintiffs, and other costs related to the administration of the Settlement and
implementation of the Plan of Allocation), will be paid to the Plan and allocated among the Class
Members in accordance with the Plan of Allocation to be approved by the Court. See Section 7
below for details about the Plan of Allocation.
The Class consists of (a) all participants, whether active, inactive or retired, in the Plan who held
Nortel stock in their 401(k) individual accounts at any time from March 7, 2000, through January
1, 2008, and (2) as to each person within the scope of subsection (a) of this paragraph, his, her or
its beneficiaries, alternate payees (including spouses of deceased Plan participants),
representatives, or successors-in-interest; provided, however, that the Class shall not include (i)
the Settling Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families of each of the Settling
Defendants; and (iii) the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, or assigns of any
such excluded person or entity.
As with any litigation, the Settling Parties would face an uncertain outcome if the Nortel ERISA
Action were to continue, especially in view of Nortel’s insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings
in Canada and the United States. Continued litigation of the Nortel ERISA Action could result in
a judgment or verdict greater or less than the recovery under the Settlement or in no recovery at
all. Throughout this litigation, the Named Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants have disagreed
on both liability and damages, and they do not agree on the amount that would be recoverable
even if the Named Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial. The Settling Defendants, among other
things, (1) have denied, and continue to deny, the material allegations of the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint; (2) have denied, and continue to deny, any wrongdoing or liability
whatsoever; (3) believe that they acted at all times reasonably and prudently and in accordance
with applicable law with respect to the Plan, the participants and beneficiaries and the Class; (4)
would assert certain other defenses if this Settlement is not consummated; and (5) are entering
into the Settlement solely to avoid the cost, disruption, and uncertainty of litigation. The Settling
Parties have taken into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in this litigation, particularly its
complex nature and Nortel’s bankruptcy proceedings in Canada and the United States, and have
concluded that it is desirable that this Nortel ERISA Action be fully and finally settled on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.
5
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
Lead Counsel in this Nortel ERISA Action will apply to the Court for an order awarding
attorneys’ fees up to one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $7,166,667, plus
reimbursement of expenses. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for case
contribution awards of $10,000 for each of the Named Plaintiffs, as well as an additional amount
of $10,852 to Named Plaintiff Carol Felts to compensate her for the severance she declined
under the Nortel Networks Severance Allowance Plan in order to participate as a Named Plaintiff
in this action. Any award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and any Case Contribution
Compensation will be payable from the proceeds of the Gross Settlement Fund.
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I receive this Notice package?
Either you or someone in your family may be a member of the Class. The Court has directed that
this Notice be sent to you because, as a potential member of the Class, you have a right to know
about the proposed Settlement with the Settling Defendants before the Court decides whether to
approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, any related objections and appeals
are favorably resolved, and the Settlement also receives approval from the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Net
Settlement Fund will be allocated among the Class according to a Court-approved Plan of
Allocation. Furthermore, the Released Parties will be released from all Released Claims, as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.
This Notice explains the Nortel ERISA Action, the Settlement, your legal rights, what benefits
are available, who is eligible for them, and how you will receive your portion of the benefits. The
purpose of this Notice is also to inform you of a hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) to be held by
the District Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed
Settlement, including the Plan of Allocation, and to consider requests for attorneys’ fees and
expenses and for Case Contribution Compensation for the Named Plaintiffs.
The Fairness Hearing will be held on ____________, at _________m. before the Honorable
John T. Nixon in Courtroom ______ of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203 to determine:
(a) whether the Class should be finally certified, for settlement purposes, as a class
action;
(b) whether the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(c) whether all claims and counterclaims in the litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement;
(d) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and
reasonable and should be approved;
(e) whether the Notice and the Publication Notice and the means of disseminating same
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement (i) were appropriate and reasonable and
constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice and
(ii) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any
other applicable law;
(f) whether to approve the application for attorneys’ fees and expenses by Lead Counsel;
(g) whether to approve the application for Case Contribution Compensation for the
Named Plaintiffs;
6
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
(h) how to resolve any timely and proper objections to the Settlement, the application for
attorneys’ fees and expenses, or the application for Case Contribution Compensation
for the Named Plaintiffs; and
(i) any other matters the Court may deem appropriate.
The issuance of this Notice is not an expression of the Court’s opinion on the merits of any claim
or counterclaim in the Nortel ERISA Action, and the Court still has to decide whether to approve
the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, payment to the Class will be made after all
related appeals, if any, are favorably resolved.
2. What is the lawsuit about? What has happened so far?
In the Nortel ERISA Action, the Named Plaintiffs allege that the Settling Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to the Plan by continuing to allow the
investment of participant account balances in Nortel stock, by making false and misleading
communications to the Class about Nortel stock, and by other related acts. The Settling
Defendants filed a counterclaim against certain of the Named Plaintiffs and unnamed Class
Members for allegedly breaching release agreements that provided them with severance and
other benefits.
The Settling Defendants have denied and continue to deny that they have any liability to Plan
participants or beneficiaries. Certain defendants initially moved to dismiss the case in 2003.
Prior to a decision, the complaint was amended. Certain defendants then filed another motion to
dismiss on July 8, 2005, in which other individual defendants joined. By June of 2005,
substantial discovery had been undertaken, requiring the provision and review of many millions
of documents from the Nortel Securities II litigation. On October 11, 2006, the motions to
dismiss were denied in large part, and on April 30, 2007, the Defendants answered the complaint
and filed a counterclaim. Discovery was then fully undertaken, including extensive written and
deposition discovery regarding both fact and expert information. The parties also engaged in
significant motion practice regarding discovery throughout the Nortel ERISA Action.
On January 14, 2009, Nortel filed for protection under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. Nortel filed a comparable case under Canadian law in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.
On September 2, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant issued a Report and
Recommendation that recommended certifying the Nortel ERISA Action as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court did not
decide whether to accept that recommendation; on September 25, 2009, the Nortel ERISA
Action was stayed pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Lead Counsel conducted numerous formal mediation sessions with the Settling Defendants, as
well as ongoing informal discussions, in which the terms of the Settlement were extensively
debated and negotiated. After the Named Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants presented their
Stipulation of Settlement to the Court, the Court preliminarily certified the Class under Rule
7
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
23(b)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and approved notice of the Settlement to
the Class.
3. Why is this case a class action?
In a class action, one or more plaintiffs, called “named plaintiffs,” sue on behalf of people who
have similar claims. All of the individuals on whose behalf the Named Plaintiffs in this Nortel
ERISA Action are suing are members of a “class” referred to in this Notice as the Class. The
Court resolves the issues for all members of the Class.
4. Why is there a Proposed Settlement?
The Court has not expressed any opinions or reached any decisions on the ultimate merits of the
Named Plaintiffs’ claims or the Settling Defendants’ counterclaim. Instead, the Named Plaintiffs
and Settling Defendants have agreed to a Settlement to resolve the Nortel ERISA Action. In
reaching the Settlement, they hope to avoid the cost and delay of a trial. As with any litigation,
the parties would face an uncertain outcome if this case proceeded, including the risk of
unfavorable rulings on pending and future motions, the risk of not prevailing at trial, and the risk
of not being able to fully collect a judgment due to Nortel’s bankruptcy.
This Settlement is the product of extensive arm’s length negotiations between Lead Counsel and
the Settling Defendants’ counsel, all of whom are very experienced with respect to litigation of
this type. Based on the general risks of litigation and the particular risks presented by this case,
the Named Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel believe the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and in the best interest of all Class members. Additional information concerning these factors is
available in the motion for preliminary approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, which may be
obtained at www._________________.com.
5. How do I know whether I am a member of the Class?
The Court has certified this Nortel ERISA Action as a class action solely for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement. If the Settlement does not become final, the preliminary certification
of the Class shall become null and void, and the Settling Parties shall be returned to the status
each occupied before the preliminary certification.
The Class consists of (a) all participants, whether active, inactive or retired, in the Plan who held
Nortel stock in their 401(k) individual accounts at any time from March 7, 2000, through January
1, 2008, and (2) as to each person within the scope of subsection (a) of this paragraph, his, her or
its beneficiaries, alternate payees (including spouses of deceased Plan participants),
representatives, or successors-in-interest; provided, however, that the Class shall not include (i)
the Settling Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families of each of the Settling
Defendants; and (iii) the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, or assigns of any
such excluded person or entity.
6. What does the Settlement provide?
The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a payment of $21,500,000 in cash, which is the Gross
Settlement Amount. After deduction of the costs of notice to the Class, the costs of settlement
administration and implementation of the Plan of Allocation, Court-approved attorneys’ fees and
8
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
expenses, Court-approved Case Contribution Compensation for the Named Plaintiffs, and any
taxes, the remaining amount will be the Net Settlement Amount.
If you have been identified as a Class Member and your current mailing address has been
ascertained after reasonable efforts and based upon the reasonably accessible records maintained
by the Plan and/or the Plan Administrator, your share of the Net Settlement Fund, if any, will be
determined by the Court-approved Plan of Allocation, described generally in Section 7 below.
Allocations will be made to Plan accounts established for the identified Class Members who
have accounts, and for the identified Class Members who do not have Plan accounts, Plan
accounts will be set up for them.
Distributions and allocations of the Net Settlement Fund will occur after the Settlement’s
Effective Date, which occurs upon: the payment of the Gross Settlement Fund, the approval of
the Settlement by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the final approval of the Settlement by this Court after any
appeals relating to the Settlement are favorably decided.
As part of the Settlement, all Class members and anyone claiming through them will fully release
the Settling Defendants and other Released Parties (as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement)
from Released Claims and will be forever enjoined from bringing such Released Claims.
Likewise, the Settling Defendants will fully release the Class Members from Released Claims
and are forever enjoined from bringing such Released Claims.
The Released Claims (as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement) include all claims and
counterclaims that were or could have been asserted in the Nortel ERISA Action. This means
that Class members will not have the right to sue the Released Parties for any such claims
if the Settlement is approved. The Released Claims do not include (i) claims to enforce the
Settlement or (ii) individual claims for vested benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(1)(B), that are not related to the claims or counterclaims in the Nortel ERISA Action.
7. What will be my share of the Settlement?
Paragraph 8 of the Stipulation of Settlement sets forth a detailed Plan of Allocation, which the
Court will consider approving at the Fairness Hearing. The Plan of Allocation describes the
manner by which the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to Class Members.
In general terms, the Settlement Administrator will calculate the Loss of each Class Member
based on that individual’s interest in Nortel stock between March 7, 2000, and January 1, 2008.
The Loss of all Class Members will be totaled to yield the overall Plan Loss. The Settlement
Administrator will then calculate the Individual Claim Amount for each Class Member, which is
the same percentage of the Net Settlement Fund as the Class Member’s Loss bears to the overall
Plan Loss. Any Individual Claim Amount less than $20 will be considered a De Minimis
Amount, and only Class Members with Individual Claim Amounts of at least $20 will receive a
distribution. You are not responsible for calculating the amount you may be entitled to receive
under the Settlement. This calculation will be done as part of the implementation of the
Settlement and will be based on reasonably available Plan data.
9
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
The Net Settlement Fund is less than the total alleged losses in the Nortel ERISA Action, as set
forth in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. However, Lead Counsel believe that the
Settlement will result in identified Class Members receiving a fair amount, given the risks
presented and the possibility that litigation might result in less recovery or zero recovery.
8. How would I receive my portion of the Settlement?
You do not need to file a claim in order to be eligible for recovery. If you are a current Plan
participant, your share of the Net Settlement Fund will be credited to your Plan account. If you
are a former Plan participant, a Plan account will be set up for you to which your share of the Net
Settlement Fund will be credited. The Plan of Allocation contemplates distributions based on the
aggregate number of Class Members who have been identified and located. If you believe you
are a member of the Class, but you did not receive this Notice in the mail, please contact the
Settlement Administrator at _______________, and provide it with your name and current
address and the reasons you believe you are a member of the Class.
9. When would I receive my Settlement benefit?
Allocation of Settlement benefits is conditioned on several matters, including the Court’s
approval of the Settlement and that approval becoming Final and no longer subject to any
appeals. Upon satisfaction of all of these conditions, the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to
Class members’ Plan accounts as soon as reasonably practicable. Any appeal of the Court’s
approval could take several years. The Stipulation of Settlement may be terminated on several
grounds, including if the Court does not approve the Settlement. If the Stipulation of Settlement
is terminated, the Settlement will also be terminated, and the Nortel ERISA Action will proceed
as if the Settlement had not been reached.
10. Can I exclude myself from the Settlement?
You do not have the option to exclude yourself from the Settlement. The Class was certified
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (2) as a non–“opt out” class for the reasons
stated in the Court’s Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Preliminarily Certifying a
Settlement Class, Approving Class Notice, and Setting a Fairness Hearing, a copy of which is
available at www._________________.com. Thus, it is not possible for Plan participants or
beneficiaries to exclude themselves from the Settlement. As a Class Member, you will be bound
by any judgments or orders that are entered in the Nortel ERISA Action as to all claims that were
or could have been asserted therein. Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you can
object to the Court approving the Settlement or matters related to the Settlement. For
information on how to do so, see Section 13 below.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
11. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
The Court has appointed the law firms of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC; Berger &
Montague, PC; and Keller Rohrback, LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class. You will not be
charged directly by these firms. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire
one at your own expense.
10
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
12. How will the lawyers be paid?
Lead Counsel will file a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses
on behalf of Plaintiffs’ counsel for work performed at their direction, as well as case contribution
compensation for the Named Plaintiffs for their contributions in litigating the case. The
attorneys’ fees sought will not exceed one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Fund, or
$7,166,667. Lead Counsel will request case contribution awards of $10,000 for each of the
Named Plaintiffs, as well as an additional amount of $10,852 to Named Plaintiff Carol Felts to
compensate her for the severance she declined in order to participate as a Named Plaintiff in this
action. Any award of attorneys’ fees and expenses or Case Contribution Compensation will be
paid from the Gross Settlement Fund prior to allocation and payment to the Class. A copy of
Lead Counsel’s motion will be available at www._________________.com or by requesting a
copy from Lead Counsel.
To date, Lead Counsel have not received any payment for their services in prosecuting this
Nortel ERISA Action on behalf of the Class, nor have Lead Counsel been reimbursed for their
out-of-pocket expenses. The fees requested by Lead Counsel would compensate appointed
counsel for their efforts in achieving the Settlement for the benefit of the Class and for their risk
in undertaking this representation on a contingent basis. The Court will determine the actual
amount of the award.
OBJECTIONS
13. How do I raise any objection I have to the Settlement?
Class members may appear at the Fairness Hearing and explain why they think the Settlement of
the Nortel ERISA Action as embodied in the Stipulation of Settlement, including the Plan of
Allocation, should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and why a judgment should
not be entered thereon; why attorneys’ fees and expenses should not be awarded, in whole or in
part; or why the Named Plaintiffs should not be granted Case Contribution Compensation, in
whole or in part.
However, no member of the Class shall be heard or entitled to contest these matters unless such
Class Member has filed with the Court and served on counsel a written objection, including any
legal support and/or evidence that such Objector wishes to bring to the Court’s attention or
introduce in support of such objection. To object, please send a letter or other written statement
with your objection(s) in accordance with the instructions below. Be sure to include your name,
address, telephone number, signature, and a full explanation of all reasons you object.
Your written objection must be filed with the Court and served upon the counsel listed
below so as to be received by no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the date of
the Fairness Hearing:
File with the Clerk of the Court:
Clerk of the Court
Re: MDL Docket No. 03:03-MD-1537
United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee
11
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
Nashville, TN 37203
Serve copies of all such papers by mail or fax upon each of the following:
To Lead Counsel:
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Fax: 602-248-2822
1622 Locust Street
Fax: 215-875-4604
Nashville, TN 37201
Fax: 615-255-5419
To counsel for Settling Defendants:
Jackson Lewis LLP
650 Poydras, Suite 1900
Fax: 504-208-1759
UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, ANY CLASS MEMBER WHO
DOES NOT OBJECT IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED HEREIN WILL BE DEEMED
TO HAVE WAIVED ANY OBJECTION AND SHALL BE FOREVER FORECLOSED
FROM MAKING ANY OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND THE
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND CASE CONTRIBUTION
AWARDS.
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
14. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on ____________, at _________m. in Courtroom
______ of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 801 Broadway,
Nashville, TN 37203.
12
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE
APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND CASE
CONTRIBUTION AWARDS, YOU NEED NOT ATTEND THE FAIRNESS HEARING.
At the hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
If there are objections, the Court will consider them. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will
decide whether to certify the Class and grant final approval to the Settlement, including the Plan
of Allocation. The Court will also consider the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses and Case
Contribution Compensation to the Named Plaintiffs. We do not know how long these decisions
will take.
15. Do I have to come to the hearing?
Lead Counsel will answer questions that the Honorable John T. Nixon may have at the Fairness
Hearing. You are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not
have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you filed and served your written objection in a
timely manner, it will be before the Court when the Court considers whether to approve the
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. You may also have your own lawyer attend the
Fairness Hearing at your expense, but such attendance is not mandatory.
16. May I speak at the hearing?
If you are a member of the Class and you wish to speak or present evidence at the Fairness
Hearing, you must file and serve a timely objection as described above. You must also file with
the Court and serve upon counsel listed above a notice of intention to appear, setting forth,
among other things, your name, address, and telephone number (and, if applicable, the name,
address and telephone number of your attorney) so as to be received no later than fourteen (14)
days before the date of the Fairness Hearing.
IF YOU DO NOTHING
17. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing and you are identified as a Class member, and you have a Plan account or your
address is current with the Settlement Administrator, you will participate in the Settlement as
described above in this Notice if the Settlement is approved. If you are a member of the Class
and the Settlement becomes effective, regardless of whether you have been identified by the
Settlement Administrator or are receiving a share of the Net Settlement Fund, you will be
deemed to have released all Released Claims against all Released Parties.
18. How can I obtain further information?
The above description of the terms of the Settlement is only a summary. Full details of the
Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, including its exhibits. You may obtain a
copy of the Stipulation of Settlement by making a written request to Lead Counsel listed in
Section 13 above. Copies of the Stipulation of Settlement and the Court’s Preliminary Approval
Order may also be viewed at www._________________.com.
DATED: _____________, 2011. By Order of the Court
13
{000458/02211/00207939.DOCX / Ver.1}
EXHIBIT C-2
{000458/02211/00208100.DOCX / Ver.1}
NASHVILLE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Judge John T. Nixon
COURT-ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE
IF YOU WERE A PARTICIPANT AT ANY TIME BETWEEN MARCH 7,
2000, AND JANUARY 1, 2008, IN THE LONG-TERM INVESTMENT
PLAN (“THE PLAN”) SPONSORED BY NORTEL NETWORKS, INC.
or
A BENEFICIARY, ALTERNATE PAYEE, REPRESENTATIVE, OR
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF ANY SUCH PERSON,
THEN YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT AS A
RESULT OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.
A proposed Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in a class
action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (“ERISA”) in connection with the Plan described above. The terms of the
Settlement are contained in a Stipulation of Settlement last dated July 26, 2011, a copy of which
is available at www._________________.com or by contacting Lead Counsel identified below.
Capitalized terms used in this Publication Notice and not defined herein have the meanings
assigned to them in the Stipulation of Settlement.
1 {000458/02211/00208100.DOCX / Ver.1}
This Settlement will provide for the establishment of a Gross Settlement Fund of
$21,500,000 in cash proceeds. Some of the proceeds in the Gross Settlement Fund will be used
to pay for notice to Class Members, settlement administration, potential taxes, and subject to
Court approval, attorneys’ fees and expenses and Case Contribution Compensation to the Named
Plaintiffs. The remaining Net Settlement Fund will eventually be paid to the Plan, which will
allocate those proceeds to the Plan Account for each Authorized Claimant in accordance with a
Plan of Allocation to be submitted to the Court for approval.
If you qualify, you will receive such an allocation. You do not need to submit a claim or
take any other action unless you wish to object to the Settlement or other matters related to the
Settlement. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (the “Court”)
authorized this Notice.
THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING ON ____________, 2011, TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT.
Who is Included in the Settlement?
If you were a participant or beneficiary in the Plan at any time during the period from
March 7, 2000, through and January 1, 2008, and held Nortel stock in your 401(k) individual
account, you are a member of the Class. The Class does not include the Settling Defendants,
their immediate families, or the legal successors or heirs or any such excluded person or entity.
What Is This Case About?
The Named Plaintiffs in the case allege that the Settling Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to the Plan by continuing to allow the investment of
participant account balances in Nortel stock, by making false and misleading communications to
the Class about Nortel stock, and by other related acts. The Settling Defendants filed a
2 {000458/02211/00208100.DOCX / Ver.1}
counterclaim against certain of the Named Plaintiffs and unnamed Class Members for allegedly
breaching release agreements that provided them with severance and other benefits. All of the
Named Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.
The Court has not ruled in favor of either side. However, the Settlement would result in
the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The Named Plaintiffs have agreed
to the Settlement because they believe that in light of the risks associated with continuing to
prosecute the litigation, especially in view of Nortel’s bankruptcy proceedings in Canada and the
United States, the Settlement is in the best interests of the Class Members.
How Will the Settlement Money Be Allocated?
If you are a Class member, your share of the Net Settlement Fund will be based on your
proportionate share of the losses allegedly suffered by the Plan that were sought to be recovered
through the lawsuit from the Settling Defendants. The greater your share of those losses, the
larger your share will be of the Net Settlement Fund. However, due to the bankruptcy of Nortel
and other factors, it is anticipated that your share of the net settlement proceeds will be less than
your actual losses.
What Fees and Expenses are Being Sought by the Attorneys?
The lawyers who have prosecuted this case on behalf of Named Plaintiffs and the Class
on a contingent fee basis will file a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. The
attorneys’ fees sought will not exceed one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Fund, or
$7,166,667. Lead Counsel’s motion will also request Case Contribution Compensation, to come
out of the Gross Settlement Fund, of $10,000 for each of the Named Plaintiffs, as well as an
additional amount of $10,852 to Named Plaintiff Carol Felts to compensate her for the severance
she declined in order to participate as a Named Plaintiff in this action. Class Members may file
3 {000458/02211/00208100.DOCX / Ver.1}
objections to these requests prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Court must approve any award of
attorneys’ fees and expenses or Case Contribution Compensation.
Are There More Details to the Settlement?
The Settlement includes a number of other important details. These include, but are not
limited to, provisions relating to (1) releases of claims between the Named Plaintiffs and the
Class Members, on one hand, and the Settling Defendants, on the other hand; (2) allocation of
payments to the Plan Accounts of Authorized Claimants; and (3) instructions for Class Members
who wish to object to the proposed Settlement, the request for attorney’s fees and expenses, or
the request for Case Contribution Compensation for the Named Plaintiffs.
How Do I Get More Information?
If you have received in the mail a Notice of Proposed Settlement of ERISA Class Action,
Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Named Plaintiffs’ Compensation
Awards, and Fairness Hearing regarding this lawsuit, you should read that document for more
information. It is more detailed than this Publication Notice. Among other things, it includes a
more detailed description of the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, a description of the
history of the case, and an explanation of the reasons for the Settlement.
If you did not receive the Notice of Proposed Settlement in the mail, you may request one
by contacting Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel:
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-248-0088
1622 Locust Street
4 {000458/02211/00208100.DOCX / Ver.1}
Phone: 800-424-6690
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: 615-254-8801
Please direct questions to Lead Counsel, not to the Court. Additional information
regarding the Settlement is available at www._________________.com.
What Are My Options?
Because of the nature of the case, you cannot “opt out” or exclude yourself from the
Settlement. If you wish to object to the Settlement, to the Plan of Allocation, to the proposed
attorneys’ fees and expenses, or to the request for Case Contribution Compensation for the
Named Plaintiffs, you must file an objection with the Court so as to be received no later than
fourteen (14) calendar days before the date of the Fairness Hearing. If you do not want to object,
you do not have to do anything. If the Court approves the Settlement and you are a member of
the Class, you will be entitled to have a share of the Net Settlement Fund (subject to certain
Court-approved restrictions) paid into your Plan Account.
What Happens Next?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on ____________, 2011. At that hearing, the
Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are
objections, the Court will consider those objections. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will
decide whether to grant final approval of the Settlement.
5 {000458/02211/00208100.DOCX / Ver.1}
EXHIBIT D-1
EXHIBIT D-2

Plaintiffs` Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

Transcription

Similar documents

Elizabeth M. Tannon | Of Counsel

Here For Pdf Version

Wolf Popper LLP

Alfred Klein

`The Real McCoy` - Fishman Stewart PLLC

exhibit 4 - Allen v. Similasan

Piikani Nation Waters

Heather T. Rankie

Todd Michaelis Experience - Carmody Torrance Sandak