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.

From Senior District Judge, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

In the proceedings it has presided over, this court has become directly familiar with the specialized, highly competent, and effective quality of the legal services performed by Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. and Martin I. Twersky, Esq. of Berger & Montague . . . .

Examination of the experience-studded biographies of the attorneys primarily involved in this litigation and review of their pioneering prosecution of many class actions in antitrust, securities, toxic tort matters and some defense representation in antitrust and other litigation, this court has no difficulty in approving and adopting the hourly rates fixed by Judge Aldrich.

From Judge Thomas P. Greisa, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
I find [the settlement] has been the result of a great deal of good work and it's the best that could have been done in this case without any doubt. . . . It is a well-deserved fee. . . . I am happy to approve it. . . .  [A]ll of you have done a great deal of work, and surmounted a really tremendous difficulty. . ., so it's wonderful to have it.

Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Sherrie R. Savett and Phyllis M. Parker in In re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2006), which settled for $15 million.

From Judge Anthony Scirica, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:

A[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.  Their attention to detail was such that when Rite Aid=s financial concerns led to its willingness to consider renegotiating the non-cash portion of the Rite Aid I settlement, counsel B aided by investment advisors Wilber Ross and Bear Stearns B ultimately monetized the entire settlement and gained the class interest of $14,435,104 when interest rates were the lowest they have been in over forty years.  In short, it would be hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here.@

Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Sherrie R. Savett, Robin Switzenbaum, and Carole A. Broderick, in In re Rite Aid Inc. Securities Litigation, 269 F. Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

From Judge Stewart Dalzell, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
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 $334 million in In re Rite Aid Inc. Securities Litigation, 269 F. Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

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, Jacob A. Goldberg, and Douglas M. Risen, on the partial settlement for $111 million approved May, 2000, In Re: IKON Offices Solutions Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 98-4286 (E.D. Pa. 2000).

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 and Carole A. Broderick, in In Re: Waste Management, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 97-C 7709 (N.D. Ill. 1999).

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 shareholder Arthur Stock, in In Re Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 99-5333 (E.D. Pa. 1999).

From Judge Stewart Dalzell, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
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.

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, (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... [I]t 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 Berger & Montague in achieving a $33 million settlement in In re Oak 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 and Stephen A. Whinston, In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

From Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
[T]his represents an excellent settlement for the Class and reflects the outstanding effort on the part of highly experienced, skilled, and hard working Class Counsel. . . . [T]heir efforts were not only successful, but were highly organized and efficient in addressing numerous complex issues raised in this litigation[.]

Regarding the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Daniel Berger, Eric L. Cramer, David Sorensen, and Neill Clark, among other firms and counsel, in In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, in the Order approving the $110 million final settlement of this action, dated November 26, 2002.

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, *5-6 (N.D. Ill. February 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 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.

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 chairman David Berger, antitrust department chair, H. Laddie Montague, Jr., and shareholder Martin Twersky, and other Berger & Montague attorneys, in Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp, 621 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985).

From Judge Joseph Blumenfeld, of the U.S. District Court 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.

From the In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, which involved the work of, among others, antitrust department chair, H. Laddie Montague, Jr.

From Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware (New Castle):
[L]et me make several unsolicited comments about the case.  First, I do not believe in my ten years on the bench I have had finer attorneys practice before me.  Both Mr. Wallace [for defendant Texaco] and Mr. Kahana [for plaintiff Christiana] were not only gentlemen but excellent advocates for their clients, and I do not believe the case could have been better presented to the jury.  While not regular practitioners in this Court, they both exhibited the highest degree of advocacy and civility expected of our profession and will always be welcome in my Court.

Praising the litigation work of Peter R. Kahana in Christiana Marine Service Corporation v. Texaco Fuel and Marine Marketing Inc., and Texaco, Inc., 2004 Del. Super. 3, *28-*29

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 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. Among the lawyers specifically mentioned for special recognition were Stephen A. Whinston and Edward W. Millstein, both shareholders of the firm.

From Chief Judge Edward Becker, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
Very ably argued by both of you.  Good lawyers.  We appreciate it.

Praising the oral argument of shareholder, Eric L. Cramer (and his opposing counsel), after oral argument in Hruban v. Steinman, in which the Third Circuit panel later confirmed a $1.1 million arbitration award for Mr. Cramer's client.

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.

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.

From Stephen M. Feiler, Ph.D., Director of Judicial Education Department, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
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.

Praising, in October 2007, senior shareholder Merrill G. Davidoff's work as a faculty member in the continuing education program for all Pennsylvania Common Pleas Judges