Judicial Praise for Our Securities & Investor Protection Group
Federal and state judges across the United States have recognized and commended Berger Montague’s legal skills and extraordinary success in securities fraud class actions.
Berger Montague’s Securities & Investor Protection Group lawyers are often recognized by federal courts for their ability to develop, guide and settle extremely large and complex securities fraud class actions. Some examples of remarks noting the skill, efficiency and expertise of our attorneys are below:
From Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
The lead plaintiff has made “very full and well-crafted” and “excellent submissions” and a “very fine job [was] done by plaintiffs’ counsel in this case.” The attorney fees requested were “eminently reasonable” and “appropriately modest.” This was “surely a very good result under all the facts and circumstances.” In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation, No. 07-CV-09633 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
From Chief Justice Steele and Justices Holland, Berger, Jacobs and Ridgely, of the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc:
“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.” In re Matter of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, 945 A.2d 1123, 1143-44 (Del. 2008).
From Chancellor William Chandler, III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware:
“Counsel, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts in obtaining this result for the class.” Ginsberg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., C.A. No. 2202 (Del. Ch. 2008) ($99 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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.” In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51089, at *17-18 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007) ($93 million settlement).
From The Hon. Thomas P. Greisa of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
“I find [that 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…. [A]ll of you have done a great deal of work, and surmounted a really tremendous difficulty. . . , so it’s wonderful to have it.” In re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ($15 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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.” In re Xcel Energy Securities Derivative “ERISA” Litigation, 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992, 995-996 (D. Minn. 2005) ($80 million settlement).
From The Hon. Stewart R. Dalzell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
“Thanks to 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 $145,754,922.60. The class also received $14,435,104 in interest on the Notes.”
“Berger Montague … were extraordinarily deft and efficient in handling this most complex matter… [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-aided by investment advisors Wilber Ross and Bear Stearns-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.” In re Rite Aid Inc. Securities Litig., 269 F. Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (settlements totaling $334 million).
“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.” In re Rite Aid Inc. Securities Litig., 146 F. Supp. 2d 706, 735 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (settlements totaling $334 million).
“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.” In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litig., Civil Action No. 92-0678, (E.D. Pa. 1994).
From The Hon. 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.” In re IKON Offices Solutions Securities Litig., Civil Action No. 98-4286 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (partial settlement for $111 million).
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.” Steinman v. LMP Hedge Fund, NASD Case No. 98-04152 (2000).
From The Hon. 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.” In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litig., Civil Action No. 97-C 7709 (N.D. Ill. 1999) ($220 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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.” In re Unisys Corporation Securities Litig., Civil Action No. 99-5333 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
From The Hon. Helen J. Frye of 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 four-month 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 … have exhibited an unusual degree of skill and diligence, and have had to contend with opposing counsel who also displayed unusual skill and diligence. In re Melridge, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 87-cv-1426 (D. Ore. 1996) ($58 million settlement).
From the Hon. William K. Thomas 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.” In re Revco Securities Litigation (N.D. Ohio 1993) ($36 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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.” In re Policy Management Systems Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:93-0807-17 (D.S.C. 1993) ($32 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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.” In re Oak Securities Litig., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20942 (S.D. Cal. 1986) ($33 million settlement).
From The Hon. 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.” In re Warner Communications Securities Litig., 618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Contact Us to Learn More or to Report a Possible Securities Fraud
We invite you to learn more about our Securities & Investor Protection Group. Berger Montague welcomes referrals from other law firms and attorneys. If you have information about a fraud affecting institutional, individual or governmental investors, 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 a Securities & Investor Protection Group shareholder. We are available to evaluate potential securities fraud cases without charge.