Judicial Praise

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 Coughlin Stoia 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.

“It is just a joy to be in a courtroom with such talented lawyers. It’s really the best experience from a judicial perspective in court when you engage in this discussion with real experts who are here to try to educate and persuade.”

Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut praised the result of our Insurance Practice Group in achieving a $72.5 million settlement in 2010 in the case of Spencer v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (the detail of which are summarized above).  Among other things, Judge Hall found that “but 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 and case.” See Spencer v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-1681, Dkt. 268 at 71:15 to 73:5 (transcript of final settlement approval hearing on Sept. 21, 2010).

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana praised the result of our Insurance Practice Group in achieving a $90 million settlement in 2012 in the case Ormond v. Anthem (the details of which are summarized above). Among other things, Judge Pratt found “that the risk undertaken by Class counsel was significant, especially considering the lack of similar cases, complex legal theories, and vigorous defense”; and further, that “Class Counsel’s performance in this case was outstanding as is reflected by the result achieved.” See Ormond v. Anthem, No. 1:05-cv-01908, Dkt. # 781 at pages 7-8.

“Finally, the court unhesitatingly concludes that the quality of the representation rendered by counsel was uniformly high. The attorneys involved in this litigation are extremely experienced and skilled in their prosecution of antitrust litigation and other complex actions. Their services have been rendered in an efficient and expeditious manner, but have nevertheless been productive of a highly favorable result. In re Art Materials Antitrust Litig., 1984 CCH Trade Cases ¶ 65,815 (N.D. Ohio 1983) ($7.5 million settlement).”

“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.” In re Master Key Antitrust Litig., 1977 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12948, at *35 (Nov. 4, 1977) ($21 million settlement).

“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 conditions, 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.” Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp, 621 F. Supp. 27, 31 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ($35 million settlement).

“Obviously, high skill was required to perform the services here, and I’ll revisit the issue of experience and ability in a moment, but this was not the kind of case that an average lawyer without special skill in the class action anti-trust field, it seems to me, could handle;” and

“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 …” Spawd, Inc. and General Generics v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., CA No. PJM-92-3624 (stated in a Settlement Approval Hearing, Oct. 28, 1994).

“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[.]” In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1734, at *4-6 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2000) ($717 million settlement).

“[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[.]” In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ($110 million settlement).

“[T]he size of the settlements in absolute terms and expressed as a percentage of total damages evidence a high level of skill by petitioners … The Court has repeatedly stated that the lawyering in the case at every stage was superb, and does so again.” In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 2004 WL 1221350, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 2004) ($202 million settlement).

“This is a substantial recovery that has the deterrent effect that class actions are supposed to have, and I think it was done because we had really good Plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case who were running it.” Transcript of the June 24, 2019 Fairness Hearing in In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, No. 16-cv-696 (E.D.N.Y.).

I find counsel to be skilled and experienced and to have zealously represented the interests of the plaintiffs and the settlement class.

“I think y’all have been a model on how to handle a case like this. So I appreciate the diligence y’all have put in separating the fee negotiations until after the main event is resolved…Everything I see here is in great shape, and really a testament to y’all’s diligence and professionalism. So hats off to y’all…So thanks again for your professionalism in handling this case and handling the stipulated settlement. Y’all are model citizens, and so I wish I could send everyone to y’all’s school of litigation management.”

The degree to which you all litigated the case is — you know, I can’t imagine attorneys litigating a case more rigorously than you all did in this case. It seems like every conceivable, legitimate, substantive dispute that could have been fought over was fought over to the max. So you, both sides, I think litigated the case as vigorously as any group of attorneys could. The level of representation of all parties in terms of the sophistication of counsel was, in my view, of the highest levels. I can’t imagine a case in which there was really a higher quality of representation across the board than this one.

You 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.

Co-lead counsel…here was 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.

I know the diligence of counsel and dedication of counsel to the class…Thank you, Ms. Drake. As always I appreciate the — your extraordinary dedication to your — to class and the very obvious backward and forward familiarity you have with the case and your level of preparation and articulateness today. It’s a pleasure always to have you before me…Class counsel [] generated this case on their own initiative and at their own risk. Counsel’s enterprise and ingenuity merit significant compensation…Counsel here are justifiably proud of the important result that they achieved.

Counsel…for direct action plaintiffs have done an outstanding job here with representing the class, and I thought your briefing was always very on point. I thought the presentation of the very contentious issues on the class action motion was very well done, it was very well briefed, it was well argued.

Class Counsel has without question done a tremendous job in litigating this case. They represent some of the best plaintiff-side antitrust groups in the country, and the size and skill of the defense they litigated against cannot be overstated. They have also demonstrated the utmost professionalism despite the demands of the extreme perseverance that this case has required…

I just want to thank you for your outstanding presentation. I don’t say that lightly . . . it’s not lost on me at all when lawyers come very, very prepared. And really, your clients should be very proud to have such fine lawyering. I don’t see lawyering like this every day in the federal courts, and I am very grateful. And I appreciate the time and the effort you put in, not only to the merits, but the respect you’ve shown for each other, the respect you’ve shown for the Court, the staff, and the time constraints. And as I tell my law clerks all the time, good lawyers don’t fight, good lawyers advocate. And I really appreciate that more than I can express.

Im not sure I’ve ever seen a case without a single objection or opt-out, so congratulations on that.

“…the Court would be remiss if it did not commend class counsel and all those who worked for firms representing the thousands of current and former employees of Kodak for the outstanding job they did in representing the interests of their clients…Their legal work in an extraordinarily complex case was exemplary, their tireless commitment to seeking justice for their clients was unparalleled and their conduct as officers of the court was beyond reproach.”

“I do want to compliment all counsel for how they litigated this case in a thoroughly professional manner. All parties were zealously represented in the highest ideals of the profession, legitimately and professionally, and not the usual acrimony we see in these cases…I commend the parties and their counsel for a very workmanlike professional effort.”

“You are extraordinarily impressive. And I thank you for being here, and for your candid, non-evasive response to every question I have. I was extremely skeptical at the outset of this morning. You have allayed all of my concerns and have persuaded me that this is an important issue and that you have done a great service to the class. And for that reason, I am going to approve your settlement in all respects, including the motion for attorneys’ fees. And I congratulate you on your excellent work.”

“We sitting here don’t always get to see such fine lawyering, and it’s really wonderful for me both to have tough issues and smart lawyers…I want to congratulate all of you for the really hard work you put into this, the way you presented the issues…On behalf of the entire federal judiciary, I want to thank you for the kind of lawyering we wish everybody would do.”