Judicial Praise For Our Antitrust Group
Federal courts across the United States have recognized and commended Berger Montague’s legal skills and extraordinary success in antitrust class actions.
Berger Montague’s antitrust lawyers are often recognized by federal courts for their ability to develop, guide and settle extremely large and complex antitrust class actions. Some examples of remarks noting the skill, efficiency and expertise of our attorneys are below:
From The Hon. Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York:
“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.)
From The Hon. Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
“[C]ounsel…for direct plaintiffs have done an outstanding job here 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.” Transcript of the June 28, 2018 Hearing in In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, No. MD-13-2437 at 11:6 – 11.
From The Hon. Madeline Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey:
“I just want to thank you for the outstanding presentation. I don’t say that lightly. And I know how much–I can only imagine how much work has gone into this case in general and this hearing in particular. And 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. (Emphasis Added). 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.” Castro v. Sanofi Inc, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-07178-JMV-MAH (D.N.J.). Tr. 658-59 (Sept. 11, 2015).
From The Hon. William H. Pauley III of the U.S. District Court for 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 … [Class Counsel] 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.” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 263 F.R.D. 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ($336 million settlement).
From The Hon. Jan E. DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
“[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).
From The Hon. 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[.]” In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ($110 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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[.]” 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).
From The Hon. Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:
“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).
From The Hon. 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 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).
From The Hon. M. Joseph Blumenfeld, Chief Judge 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.” In re Master Key Antitrust Litig., 1977 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12948, at *35 (Nov. 4, 1977) ($21 million settlement).
From The Hon. Robert B. Krupansky, who first served on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and then on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:
“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).”
Contact Us To Learn More
We invite you to learn more about our Antitrust Group. Berger Montague welcomes referrals from other law firms and attorneys. For more information or to schedule a confidential discussion about a potential case, please fill out the contact form on the right, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org, or contact an Antitrust Group shareholder. We are available to evaluate potential antitrust cases without charge.