In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation

Filing 20

DECLARATION of Curtis V. Trinko in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Appoint Counsel Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Interim Lead Class Counsel.FIRST MOTION to Consolidate Cases 04-1178, 04-2785, 04-2786, 04-3225, 04-3229, 04-3308.FIRST MOTION to Consolidate Cases 04-1178, 04-2785, 04-2786, 04-3225, 04-3229, 04-3308.. Document filed by Transhorn, Ltd.. (Trinko, Curtis)

Download PDF
In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation Doc. 20 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 1 of 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED x : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x Civil Action No. 04-CV-01178 (ECF CASE) Judge Thomas P. Griesa TRANSHORN LTD., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. 1775 HOUSING ASSOCIATES, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. [Caption continued on following page.] Civil Action No. 04-CV-02785 Judge Thomas P. Griesa DECLARATION OF CURTIS V. TRINKO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' TRANSHORN LIMITED, D.F. CHASE, INC., MOUNTAIN BAY CONSTRUCTION AND 435 PACIFIC, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 2 of 99 TRIANGLE HOUSING ASSOCIATES, L.P., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. x : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x Civil Action No. 04-CV-02786 Judge Richard Owen Civil Action No. 04-CV-03225 Judge Thomas P. Greisa [Caption continued on following page.] Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 3 of 99 BIRMINGHAM BUILDING TRADES TOWER, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. RIVERBAY CORPORATION, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. x : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x Civil Action No. 04-CV-03229 Judge Thomas P. Greisa Civil Action No. 04-CV-03308 Judge Thomas P. Griesa [Caption continued on following page.] Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 4 of 99 D.F. CHASE, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, OTIS ELEVATOR CO., KONE CORPORATION, KONE INC., SCHINDLER HOLDING LTD., SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSENKRUPP AG and THYSSEN ELEVATOR CAPITAL CORP., Defendants. x : Civil Action No. 04-CV-03569 : : Judge ___________________ : : : : : : : : : : : : x Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 5 of 99 I, CURTIS V. TRINKO, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of New York. I am a member of the Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, one of the counsel of record for plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Attached are true and correct copies of the following exhibits: Bennardi d/b/a Nedmac Associates, Inc. v. United Technologies Corp., No. 04-cv-3387 (D.N.J.) Class Action Complaint, filed May 12, 2004; Correspondence dated May 19, 2004 from William J. Doyle, II to Mary Jane Fait and Fred T. Isquith; and Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume. Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20th day of May, 2004, at New York, New York. S/ CURTIS V. TRINKO S:\CasesSD\Elevators_NY\dec00009870.doc -1- Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 6 of 99 EXHIBIT A Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 7 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 8 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 9 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 10 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 11 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 12 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 13 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 14 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 15 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 16 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 17 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 18 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 19 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 20 of 99 EXHIBIT B Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 21 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 22 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 23 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 24 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 25 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 26 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 27 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 28 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 29 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 30 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 31 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 32 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 33 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 34 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 35 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 36 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 37 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 38 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 39 of 99 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 40 of 99 EXHIBIT C Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 41 of 99 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS LLP LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS LLP ("LCSR") is a 125-lawyer law firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Houston and Philadelphia (www.LCSR.com). LCSR is actively engaged in complex litigation, emphasizing securities, consumer, insurance, healthcare, human rights, employment discrimination and antitrust class actions. LCSR's unparalleled experience and capabilities in these fields are based upon the talents of its attorneys who have successfully prosecuted thousands of class action lawsuits. As a result, LCSR attorneys have been responsible for an excess of $25 billion in recoveries. This track record of success stems from a long history of attracting experienced attorneys to our firm, including many attorneys who left partnerships at other firms and many others who came from federal, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, including dozens of former federal prosecutors. LCSR also includes more than 25 former federal (circuit and district) and state judicial clerks. LCSR currently represents more institutional investors in securities and corporate litigation ­ public and Taft-Hartley funds ­ than any other firm in the United States. William S. Lerach is widely recognized as one of the leading securities lawyers in the United States. Lerach founded the West Coast operations of LCSR's predecessor firm ­ Milberg Weiss ­ almost 30 years ago. He has headed up the prosecution of hundreds of securities class and stockholder derivative actions which have resulted in recoveries of billions of dollars. Lerach and the firm are involved in many of the largest and highest-profile securities suits in recent years, including Enron, Dynegy, AOL-TimeWarner, and WorldCom. Patrick J. Coughlin has been lead counsel in several major securities matters, including In re Apple Computer Securities Litigation, where he obtained a $100 million verdict. Prior to joining LCSR, Coughlin was a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. and San Diego handling complex white collar fraud matters, and assisted with the trial of one of the largest criminal RICO cases ever prosecuted by the United States, United States v. Brown, as well as an infamous oil fraud scheme resulting in a complex murder-for-hire trial, United States v. Boeckman. Coughlin now heads up the prosecution of the high profile HealthSouth and Qwest cases. Coughlin has handled and resolved a number of large securities cases involving such companies as 3Com, Boeing, IDB Communications Group, Unocal, Sybase, Connor, Media Vision, ADAC, Sunrise Medical, Valence, Sierra Tucson, and Merisel. In addition, Coughlin spearheaded actions against the tobacco industry resulting in the phase-out of the Joe Camel Campaign and a $12.5 billion recovery to the Cities and Counties of California ­ unique in the nation. John J. Stoia, Jr. has prosecuted numerous nationwide complex securities class actions, including In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savings & Loan Sec. Litig., MDL 834 (D. Ariz.), which arose out of the collapse of Lincoln Savings & Loan and Charles Keating's empire. Stoia was a major part of the plaintiffs' trial team which resulted in verdicts against Keating and his co-defendants in excess of $3 billion and recoveries of over $240 million. Stoia has been involved in over 40 nationwide class actions brought by policyholders against U.S. and Canadian life insurance companies seeking redress for deceptive sales Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 1 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 42 of 99 practices during the 1980s and 1990s, including, among others, Prudential, New York Life, Transamerica Life Insurance Company, General American Life Insurance Company, Manufacturer's Life, Metropolitan Life, American General, US Life, Allianz, Principal Life and Pacific Life Insurance Company. Because of Stoia's efforts, victimized policyholders have recovered over $7 billion. Recently, Stoia successfully litigated numerous cases brought against life insurance companies for racial discrimination involving the sale of small value or "industrial life" insurance policies during the 20th century. Stoia was lead counsel in McNeil v. American General Life Insurance and Accident Company, the first major settlement involving discrimination claims which resulted in a $234 million recovery for class members. Stoia has since resolved other race-based insurance cases, including Brown v. United Life Insurance Company, Morris v. Life Insurance Company of Georgia and Thompson v. Metropolitan Life. Darren J. Robbins has extensive experience in federal and state securities litigation, serving as lead counsel in the In re Dollar General Securities Litigation, In re Prison Realty Securities Litigation, and In re Hanover Compressor Securities Litigation. Robbins currently represents numerous pension funds in state and federal courts across the country and specializes in the structuring of corporate governance enhancements in connection with the resolution of shareholder class and derivative litigations. Robbins was recently recognized as California Lawyer Attorney of the Year for 2003 as a result of his participation as lead counsel in the Hanover Compressor case, where plaintiffs recovered approximately $85 million and obtained numerous corporate governance changes, such as direct shareholder nomination of Board members and a mandatory rotation of the company's outside audit firm. PRACTICE AREAS AND CURRENT CASES Securities As recent corporate scandals clearly demonstrate, it has become all-too-common for companies and their executives to manipulate the market price of their securities by misleading the public about the company's financial condition or prospects. This misleading information has the effect of artificially inflating the price of the company's securities above their true values. When the underlying truth is eventually revealed, the prices of these securities plummet, harming those innocent investors who relied upon the company's misrepresentations. LCSR is the leader in the fight to provide investors with relief from corporate securities fraud. LCSR utilizes a wide range of federal and state laws to provide investors with remedies, either by bringing a class action on behalf of all affected investors or, where appropriate, by bringing individual cases on behalf of large institutional investors. The firm's reputation for excellence has been noted on repeated occasions by courts and has resulted in the appointment of LCSR attorneys to lead roles in hundreds of complex class action securities cases. In the securities area alone, LCSR attorneys have been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries on behalf of investors which, in the aggregate, exceed $25 billion. Currently, LCSR is lead or named counsel in approximately 500 securities class action or large institutional investor cases including: Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 2 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 43 of 99 · · · · · · Enron Securities class action AOL/Time Warner individual institutional investor private actions Cisco Systems Securities class action Oracle Securities class action WorldCom Bond individual institutional investor private actions HealthSouth Securities class action One of the reasons for LCSR's dominance in this area stems from LCSR's unparalleled dedication of resources towards investor recovery. For example, LCSR has approximately 100 attorneys dedicated to investigating and prosecuting securities fraud class action cases on behalf of hundreds of institutional investors. In addition to manpower, LCSR is also well capitalized to meet the demands of prosecuting complex cases. LCSR's securities department includes numerous trial attorneys and dozens of former federal and state prosecutors. LCSR's securities department is also strengthened by the existence of a strong Appellate Department. LCSR's securities department also utilizes an extensive group of in-house experts to aid in the prosecution of complex securities issues. In particular, LCSR employs four in-house economic and damage analysts, four in-house investigators, and six forensic accountants. While obtaining recoveries for our clients is our primary focus, LCSR attorneys have also been at the forefront of securities fraud prevention. LCSR prevention efforts are focused on creating important changes in corporate governance either as part of the global settlement of derivative cases or through court orders. Recent cases in which such changes were made include: Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Hanover Compressor Co., No. H-02-0410 (S.D. Tex.) (groundbreaking corporate governance changes obtained include: direct shareholder nomination of two directors; mandatory rotation of the outside audit firm; two-thirds of the Board required to be independent; audit and other key committees to be filled only by independent directors; creation and appointment of lead independent director with authority to set up board meetings); Amalgamated Bank v. Lemay, No. 00-CV-230077 (Circuit Ct. Jackson County, Mo.) (in connection with the settlement of a derivative action involving Sprint Corporation, the company adopted over 60 new corporate governance provisions which, among other things, established a truly independent Board of Directors and narrowly defines "independence" to eliminate cronyism between the board and top executives; required outside board directors to meet at least twice a year without management present; created an independent director who will hold the authority to set the agenda, a power previously reserved for the CEO; and imposed new rules to prevent directors and officers from vesting their stock on an accelerated basis); and Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., CV No. BC185009 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1998) (as part of the settlement, corporate governance changes were made to the composition of the company's Board of Directors, the company's Nominating Committee, Compensation Committee and Audit Committee). Through these efforts, LCSR has been able to create substantial shareholder guarantees to prevent future securities fraud. The firm works exclusively with noted corporate governance expert Robert Monks and his firm, Lens Governance Advisors, to shape corporate governance remedies for the benefit of class and derivative plaintiffs. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 3 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 44 of 99 Insurance LCSR stands at the forefront in protecting the rights and prosecuting claims on behalf of individuals and state and federal entities against fraud and unfair business practices in the insurance and healthcare industries. LCSR is focused on stopping fraudulent and improper sales and servicing of life insurance policies and annuities nationwide and recouping losses for victimized policy owners. LCSR attorneys have represented and continue to represent policyowners with permanent life insurance policies, including universal life, whole life, and interest-sensitive whole life policies against numerous life insurance companies based on fraudulent and unfair sales practices. These cases are chiefly characterized by alleged misrepresentations at the point of sale concerning how the policy will perform, the amount of money the policy will cost, and whether premiums will "vanish." Claims also include allegations that purchasers were mislead concerning the financing of the new policy, falling victim to a "replacement" or "churning" sales scheme where they were convinced to use loans, partial surrenders or withdrawals of cash values from an existing permanent life insurance policy to purchase a new policy. Our lawyers are responsible for such groundbreaking decisions as In re: The Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 962 F. Supp. 450 (D. N.J. 1997), In re: Great Southern Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation, 192 F.R.D. 212 (N.D. Tex. 2000), and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1282 (4th Dist. 2002). LCSR attorneys have been at the forefront of discrimination cases against life insurance companies for their alleged practice of intentionally charging African-Americans and other minorities more for life insurance than similarly situated Caucasians. These lawsuits relate to the sale and administration of low face amount life insurance policies commonly known as "industrial," "burial," "home service," or "debit" policies. African-Americans and other minorities were allegedly charged more for the same level of life insurance than similarly situated Caucasians or were offered lower policy benefits than provided to Caucasians. Our attorneys have recovered over $400 million for African-American and other minority class members as redress for the civil rights abuses they were subjected to, including such landmark settlements as McNeil v. American Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. 3-99-1157 (M.D. Tenn. 2000), Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 216 F.R.D. 55 (S.D. N.Y. 2003), and Williams v. United Insurance Company of America, Civil Action No. 01-920 (Jefferson Cty. Ala. 2002). Our lawyers are also responsible for important decisions in this area such as In The Matter of: Monumental Life Insurance Company, Industrial Life Insurance Litigation, 343 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2003), Moore v. Liberty National Insurance Company, 267 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2001), and Carnegie v. Mutual Savings Life Insurance Company, No. CV-99-S-3292 NE, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21396 (N.D. Ala. 2002). LCSR attorneys are actively involved in litigation against major, nationwide auto insurers for alleged abuses in their claims handling procedures. These cases challenge an alleged practice to replace certain damaged automobile crash parts with cheaper, allegedly inferior, non-original equipment manufacturer parts, known as imitation parts. Given their familiarity with the fraudulent and unfair business practices employed in the insurance industry, our attorneys are experts at rooting out facially neutral, yet discriminatory business behaviors. Our redlining cases seek to curb abuses in the underwriting practices used in determining whether to issue and at what price to charge minorities for homeowner and automobile insurance policies. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 4 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 45 of 99 Antitrust LCSR's antitrust practice focuses on representing plaintiffs in complex litigation, such as small businesses and individuals who have been the victims of price-fixing, unfair trade practices, or other anticompetitive conduct. The firm has taken a leading role in many of the largest federal price-fixing and price discrimination cases throughout the United States. For example, LCSR attorneys played a lead role in In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1023 (S.D.N.Y.), serving as court-appointed co-lead counsel for a class of investors. The class alleged that the NASDAQ market-makers set and maintained wide spreads pursuant to an industry-wide conspiracy in one of the largest and most important antitrust cases in recent history. After three-and-one-half years of intense litigation, the case was settled for a total of $1.027 billion, the largest antitrust settlement ever. An excerpt from the court's opinion reads: Counsel for the Plaintiffs are preeminent in the field of class action litigation, and the roster of counsel for the Defendants includes some of the largest, most successful and well regarded law firms in the country. It is difficult to conceive of better representation than the parties to this action achieved. See In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., MDL 1023, 187 F.R.D. 465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). One of the most significant opinions in the case was Judge Sweet's decision to certify the class of millions of investors over the strenuous objections of defendants. In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, 169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Oral argument on behalf of plaintiffs on the class certification motion was presented by Leonard B. Simon, Of Counsel to LCSR. Other cases include: · Hall v. NCAA (Restricted Earnings Coach Antitrust Litigation), No. 94-2392-KHV (D. Kan.). LCSR attorneys served as lead counsel and lead trial counsel for one of three classes of coaches who alleged that the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) illegally fixed their compensation by instituting the "restricted earnings coach" rule. On May 4, 1998, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the three classes for more than $67 million. Trial counsel included LCSR attorney Bonny E. Sweeney. In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1030 (M.D. Fl.). LCSR attorneys served as co-lead counsel for a class of contact lens wearers alleging that the principal manufacturers of disposable contact lenses conspired with the leadership of the American Optometric Association and other eye care practitioners to boycott alternative channels of contact lens distribution, including pharmacies and mail order suppliers. The case settled for $89 million five weeks into a jury trial, shortly after plaintiffs' trial counsel, including LCSR attorney Christopher M. Burke, defeated defendants' motion for a directed verdict. · Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 5 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 46 of 99 · Microsoft I-V Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (San Francisco Super. Ct.). LCSR attorneys served on the executive committee in these consolidated cases, in which California indirect purchasers challenged Microsoft's illegal exercise of monopoly power in the operating system, word processing and spreadsheet markets. In a settlement recently approved by the court, class counsel obtained an unprecedented $1.1 billion worth of relief for the business and consumer class members who purchased the Microsoft products. Current cases include: · In re Currency Conversion Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.). LCSR attorneys are colead counsel (with one other firm) in this multi-district litigation, in which a class of general purpose VISA and MasterCard cardholders allege that VISA and MasterCard, and certain leading member banks of Visa and MasterCard, conspired to fix and maintain the foreign currency conversion fee charged to U.S. cardholders. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants failed to adequately disclose the fee in violation of federal law. Discovery continues, and the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is fully briefed. Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc. (the Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation), No. CV-99-7796 (C.D. Cal.). LCSR attorneys are co-lead counsel (with one other firm) in this consolidated class action, in which a class of purchasers alleges that the major producers of carbon fiber fixed the price of carbon fiber from 1993 to 1999. The trial court denied defendants' motions to dismiss and granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected defendants' challenge to the court's class certification order. Discovery is continuing. In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1543 (D. Mass.). LCSR attorneys serve as co-lead counsel for a class of businesses that allege that the major producers of carbon black unlawfully conspired to fix the price of carbon black, which is used in the manufacture of tires, rubber and plastic products, inks, and other products, from 1999 through the present. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1486 (N.D. Ca.). LCSR attorneys serve on the executive committee in this multi-district class action, in which a class of purchasers of high density low-cost-per-bit, random access memory chips, known as DRAM, allege that the leading manufactures of semiconductor products fixed the price of DRAM from the fall of 2001 through at least the end of June 2002. LCSR attorneys took the lead in briefing and successfully opposing defendant's motion to dismiss, which was denied. The parties are engaged in discovery. In re Medical Waste Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1546 (D. Utah). LCSR attorneys are colead counsel in this multi-district antitrust class action litigation involving two separate cases. In the first (the Tri-State Class Action), plaintiffs allege defendants illegally conspired to allocate customers and territories in the market for the collection, transportation and disposal of medical waste in three mountain states. In the second case (the Stoll Action), the Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 6 of 56 · · · · Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 47 of 99 firm is co-lead counsel for a California class of plaintiffs who allege that Stericycle, the largest provider of medical waste collection and disposal services in the United States, unlawfully monopolized the market for these services in California. Discovery is ongoing, and plaintiffs expect to move for certification of the class in July 2004. · In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation. LCSR attorneys have served as lead counsel, co-lead counsel and on the executive committees of more than 15 indirect purchaser actions against Microsoft brought in both state and federal courts alleging Microsoft illegally exercised its monopoly power in the operating system, word processing and spreadsheet markets. Plaintiffs successfully defeated motions to dismiss, challenges to class certification and motions for summary judgment in many state cases. Plaintiffs also engaged in a massive discovery effort in order to defeat Microsoft's challenges regarding its unlawful acts, and to prepare for trials in California and Minnesota, both of which ultimately resolved before the cases reached a jury. In many states, the parties are currently in the process of finalizing settlements and/or achieving court approval in settlements which provide an unprecedented result for indirect purchaser class members. The California Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Litigation, 02-CV-990 (S.D. Cal.). LCSR attorneys are co-lead counsel (with one other firm) in this litigation, which alleges buyers and sellers in markets operated by the California Power Exchange ("PX") and California ISO ("ISO") manipulated markets during the period May 1, 2000 to June 19, 2001. The culmination of several years of litigation, review of company documents and investigation have led to the determination of widespread market manipulation of the California and Western energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The findings show the trading strategies and withholding of power, employed by Enron and other companies, were undertaken in an effort to manipulate the California energy market which led to increased energy prices for consumers. Plaintiffs recently reached a landmark settlement in the litigation with the Williams Companies worth an estimated $400 million dollars. The case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals awaiting oral argument on several issues. · Consumer The consumer attorneys at LCSR represent plaintiffs nationwide in a variety of complex representative and consumer class actions. LCSR attorneys have taken a leading role in many of the largest state and federal consumer fraud, human rights, environmental and public health, and tobacco-related cases throughout the United States. LCSR is also actively involved in numerous cases relating to the financial services industry, pursuing claims on behalf of individuals victimized by abusive mortgage lending practices, including violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., market timing violations in connection with the sale of mutual fund and variable annuities, and deceptive consumer-credit lending practices in violation of the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 7 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 48 of 99 Current cases include: · Cellphone Termination Fee Cases. LCSR attorneys are co-lead counsel in a lawsuit against the six major wireless telephone service providers in California. The plaintiffs allege that the early termination fee provisions in defendants' contracts are illegal penalties under California law, designed to unfairly tether consumers to long-term contracts and prevent customers from changing their wireless service providers. Tenet Healthcare Cases. LCSR attorneys are co-lead counsel in a class action alleging a fraudulent scheme of corporate misconduct, resulting in the overcharging of uninsured patients by the Tenet chain of hospitals. LCSR attorneys represent uninsured patients of Tenet hospitals nationwide who were overcharged by Tenet's admittedly "aggressive pricing strategy," that resulted in price gouging of the uninsured. Ocwen Financial Corporation. LCSR attorneys represent plaintiffs alleging unfair business practices in Ocwen's servicing of residential mortgage loans. Plaintiffs claim that Ocwen has engaged in a scheme to charge vulnerable borrowers unwarranted and unlawful fees, including late penalty fees, fees associated with hazard insurance, attorneys' fees and fees associated with the unnecessary and wrongful preparation of default and foreclosure proceedings. AT&T Wireless Coverage Maps. LCSR attorneys represent consumers in a Los Angeles action that alleges false and misleading advertising by AT&T Wireless. Plaintiffs claim that AT&T Wireless's coverage maps are deceptive because they fail to disclose that defendants' service area is riddled with coverage gaps and holes. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from the court requiring AT&T Wireless to publish accurate coverage maps indicating where consumers are actually able to place wireless telephone calls throughout the Los Angeles region. · · · Prior cases include: · Schwartz v. Visa. After years of litigation and a six month trial, LCSR attorneys won one of the largest consumer protection verdicts ever awarded in the United States. In Schwartz v. Visa Int'l, et al., No. 822404-4 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County), California consumers sued Visa and MasterCard for intentionally imposing and concealing a fee from their cardholders. The court ordered Visa and MasterCard to return $800,000,000 in cardholder losses, which represented 100% of the amount illegally taken, plus 2% interest. In addition, the court ordered full disclosure of the hidden fee. In re Lifescan, Inc. Consumer Litigation, No. CV-98-20321-JF (N.D. Cal.). LCSR attorneys were responsible for achieving a $45 million all-cash settlement with Johnson & Johnson and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lifescan, Inc., over claims that Lifescan deceptively marketed and sold a defective blood-glucose monitoring system for diabetics. The Lifescan settlement was noted by the district court for the Northern District of California as providing "exceptional results" for members of the class. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 8 of 56 · Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 49 of 99 Human Rights, Labor Practices and Public Policy LCSR attorneys have a long tradition of representing the victims of wrongdoing, ranging from unfair labor practices to violation of human rights. These include: · Does I, et al. v. The Gap, Inc., et al., No. 01 0031 (D. Northern Mariana Islands). In this ground-breaking case, LCSR attorneys represented a class of 30,000 garment workers who alleged that they had worked under sweatshop conditions in garment factories in Saipan that produced clothing for top U.S. retailers such as The Gap, Target and J.C. Penney. In the first action of its kind, LCSR attorneys pursued claims against the factories and the retailers alleging violations of RICO, the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Law of Nations based on the alleged systemic labor and human rights abuses occurring in Saipan. This case was a companion to two other actions: Does I, et al. v. Advance Textile Corp., et al., No. 99 0002 (D. Northern Mariana Islands) ­ which alleged overtime violations by the garment factories under the Fair Labor Standards Act ­ and UNITE, et al. v. The Gap, Inc., et al., No. 300474 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County), which alleged violations of California's Unfair Practices Law by the U.S. retailers. These actions resulted in a settlement of approximately $20 million that included a comprehensive Monitoring Program to address past violations by the factories and prevent future ones. The members of the litigation team were honored as Trial Lawyers of the Year by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice in recognition of the team's efforts at bringing about the precedent-setting settlement of the actions. Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 654 (2003). The California Supreme Court upheld claims that an apparel manufacturer misled the public regarding its exploitative labor practices, thereby violating California statutes prohibiting unfair competition and false advertising. The court rejected defense contentions that any misconduct was protected by the First Amendment. The court found the heightened constitutional protection afforded to noncommercial speech was inappropriate in such a circumstance. The Cintas Litigation. Brought against one of the nation's largest commercial laundries for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for misclassifying truck drivers as salesmen to avoid payment of overtime. · · Shareholder derivative litigation brought by LCSR also sometimes involves anti-union activities, including: · Southern Pacific/Overnite. A shareholder action stemming from several hundred million dollars in loss of value in the Company due to systematic violations by Overnite of U.S. labor laws. Massey Energy. A shareholder action against an anti-union employer for flagrant violations of environmental laws resulting in multi-million dollar penalties. · Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 9 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 50 of 99 · Crown Petroleum. A shareholder action against a Texas-based oil company for self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty while also involved in a union lockout. LCSR attorneys also represented over 2,300 Taco Bell workers who were denied thousands of hours of overtime pay because, among other reasons, they were improperly classified as overtime exempt employees. Currently, LCSR attorneys represent CINTAS workers with similar claims of violation of federal and state labor laws. Environment & Public Health LCSR attorneys have also represented plaintiffs in class actions related to environmental law. LCSR attorneys represented, on a pro bono basis, the Sierra Club and the National Economic Development and Law Center ("NEDLC") as amici curiae in a federal suit designed to uphold the state and federal use of project labor agreements ("PLAs"). The suit represented a legal challenge to President Bush's Executive Order 13202, which prohibits the use of project labor agreements on construction projects receiving federal funds. Our Amici Brief in the matter outlined and stressed the significant environmental and socioeconomic benefits associated with the use of PLAs on large scale construction projects. LCSR also currently represents the Public Citizen, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and several other organizations in an environmental action which seeks to force the Bush Administration to perform a full environmental impact assessment before permitting cross-border trucking from Mexico. · Public Citizen v. US DOT. LCSR represents a coalition of labor, environmental, industry and public health organizations including Public Citizen, The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, California AFL-CIO and California Trucking Industry. The case presents a challenge to a decision by the Bush Administration to lift a congressionally-imposed "moratorium" on cross border trucking from Mexico on the basis that such trucks do not conform to emission controls under the Clean Air Act and, further, that the Administration did not first complete a comprehensive environmental impact analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Attorneys with LCSR have been involved in several other significant environmental cases including: · Sierra Club v. AK Steel. Brought on behalf of the Sierra Club for massive emissions of air and water pollution by a steel mill, including homes of workers living in the adjacent communities, in violation of the Federal Clean Air Act, RCRA and the Clean Water Act. MTBE Litigation. Brought on behalf of various water districts for befouling public drinking water with MTBE, a gasoline additive linked to cancer. Exxon Valdez. Brought on behalf of fisherman and of Alaska residents for billions of dollars in damages resulting from the greatest oil spill in U.S. history. Avilla Beach. A citizens suit against UNOCAL for leakage from the oil company pipeline so severe it literally destroyed the town of Avilla Beach, California. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 10 of 56 · · · Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 51 of 99 Federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and state laws such as California Proposition 65, exist to protect the environment and the public from abuses by corporate and government organizations. Companies can be found liable for negligence, trespass or intentional environmental damage and be forced to pay for reparations and to come into compliance with existing laws. Prominent cases litigated by LCSR attorneys include representing more than 4,000 individuals suing for personal injury and property damage related to the Stringfellow Dump Site in Southern California, participation in the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation, and the toxic spill arising from a Southern Pacific train derailment near Dunsmuir, California. The Fight Against Big Tobacco LCSR attorneys are leaders in the fight against Big Tobacco, and have been since 1991. As an example, LCSR attorneys filed the case that helped get rid of Joe Camel. LCSR also represents the State of Arkansas; the general public in California; the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Birmingham, Alabama; and 14 counties in California. In 1992, LCSR attorneys filed the first case in the country that alleged a conspiracy by the Big Tobacco companies. LCSR attorneys also represented the working men and women of this country in the Union Pension and Welfare Fund cases that have been filed in 40 states. Pro Bono LCSR attorneys have a long history of engaging in pro bono cases and have been recently recognized for their demonstrated commitment to providing pro bono services to the poor and disenfranchised. In 2003, LCSR attorneys Eric Isaacson, Bonny Sweeney, and Amber Eck (from the San Diego office of the then Milberg Weiss) were nominated for the prestigious 2003 California State Bar President's Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year award, based in large part on their efforts with the ACLU in Sanchez v. County of San Diego. The San Diego office received a commendation from the state bar president for its "dedication to the provision of pro bono legal services to the poor and for the significant contribution [the firm] made to extending legal services to underserved communities." In recommending the firm for the award, Carl Poirot, of the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, praised the firm for its "extraordinary efforts" in the case, stating that the "legal team generously gave of their time in the vigorous representation of a class of individuals who clearly do not have the financial resources nor wherewithal to retain legal counsel. The County's questionable conduct would have gone unchallenged but for the intervention" of the legal team. Sanchez is a class action brought on behalf of welfare applicants against the County of San Diego seeking an injunction requiring the County to discontinue its "Project 100%" program. Under Project 100%, investigators from the San Diego D.A.'s office, Public Assistance Fraud Division, enter and search the home of every person who applies for welfare benefits, even though there is no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing ­ and despite the fact that every individual is required to undergo an extensive application process with numerous verifications. Plaintiffs contend that these searches by law-enforcement officers, performed without cause or suspicion, violate state and federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 11 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 52 of 99 The court certified a class of all present and future applicants for CalWORKs cash aid and food stamps in San Diego County who are subject to a search of their home under Project 100%. Defendants have since admitted that the use of home visits to determine eligibility for food stamps violates California state regulations and has agreed to settle these claims. Although defendants were granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, plaintiffs are currently in the process of filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and are optimistic about the prospects for success there. Due to the substantial number of hours dedicated to this important case, lead attorneys Eric Isaacson, Bonny Sweeney and Amber Eck were awarded the SDVLP Distinguished Service Award. This San Diego office was also named as one of three finalists for the 1999 Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year award by the SDVLP, based in part for its work on the Badua v. City of San Diego case. Badua was a case brought on behalf of Jenny Badua against the City of San Diego. After working for the City for 15 years, she was placed on Long Term Disability ("LTD") leave due to severe manic depression. Under the City's LTD Plan, which is similar to many other LTD plans, individuals with physical disabilities receive benefits until age 65 or longer, but individuals with mental disabilities receive benefits for only two years. We alleged that this differential treatment of persons with mental disabilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal and state disability nondiscrimination statutes. Unfortunately, after three years of working on the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of an LTD plan nearly identical to the one at issue, and plaintiffs settled the case for a nominal award to the plaintiff. However, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund and the ACLU commended our efforts and described this as one of the most important issues of the year. Our co-counsel, Linda Kilb of the DREDF, said in recommending us for the award: "The talent, effort and commitment of [LCSR attorneys have] been invaluable, and it is difficult to imagine how the case could proceed without them. DREDF is enormously appreciative of [LCSR attorneys'] continuing role in this case, and of SDVLP's assistance in finding us co-counsel of this caliber." JUDICIAL COMMENDATIONS LCSR attorneys, working under the former Milberg Weiss mantel, have been commended by countless judges all over the country for the quality of representation in class action lawsuits. When Judge Harmon appointed LCSR attorneys as lead counsel for Enron securities purchasers, she commented: In reviewing the extensive briefing submitted regarding the Lead Plaintiff/Lead Counsel selection, the Court has found that the submissions of [LCSR attorneys] stand out in the breadth and depth of its research and insight. Furthermore, Mr. Lerach has justifiably "beat his own drum" in demonstrating the role his firm has played thus far in zealously prosecuting this litigation on Plaintiffs' behalf. See In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig., 206 F.R.D. 427, 458 (S.D. Tex. 2002). Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 12 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 53 of 99 In a November 9, 1998 order approving settlements totaling over $1.027 billion, the court in In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), commented about LCSR attorneys including Len Simon that: Counsel for the Plaintiffs are preeminent in the field of class action litigation, and the roster of counsel for the Defendants includes some of the largest, most successful and well regarded law firms in the country. It is difficult to conceive of better representation than the parties in this action achieved. In Transamerica, Judge Danielson made it a point to comment on the professionalism of LCSR attorneys: It would be hard to imagine what question I could come up with that I haven't already seen the information that I needed in the submissions that have been made to this Court. I can't remember anything so thoroughly and professionally handled in the 20-some odd years that I've been involved in the law. It is interesting to see law practiced honorably. And I think all of the lawyers who have involved themselves in this case can be very proud of their profession. See Gordon v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., Hearing Transcript dated June 26, 1997, at 39:3-12. Similarly, in Prudential, in approving the settlement of a nationwide class action against a life insurer for deceptive sales practices, Judge Wolin observed: [T]he results achieved by plaintiffs' counsel in this case in the face of significant legal, factual and logistical obstacles and formidable opposing counsel, are nothing short of remarkable.... Finally, the standing and professional skill of plaintiffs' counsel, in particular Co-Lead Counsel, is high and undoubtedly furthered their ability to negotiate a valuable settlement and argue its merits before this Court. Several members of plaintiffs' counsel are leading attorneys in the area of class action litigation. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 962 F. Supp. 572, 585-86 (D.N.J. 1997), vacated on other grounds, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998). LCSR attorneys were co-lead counsel in this litigation. At the Fairness Hearing in Prudential, Judge Wolin stated that "there is no doubt that Class Counsel have prosecuted the interests of the class members with the utmost vigor and expertise." In re Prudential Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 962 F. Supp. 450, 519 (D.N.J. 1997), aff'd, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). In approving a $100 million settlement in In re Prudential Securities Limited Partnerships Litig., 912 F. Supp. 97, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), for which LCSR attorneys, acting under the Milberg Weiss firm name, were part of the lead counsel, Judge Pollack noted that he had "the opportunity at first hand to observe the quality of plaintiffs' class counsel's representation, both here and in prior complex litigation, and [was] impressed with the quality of plaintiffs' class counsel." In his opinion on class certification, Judge Chesler elaborated that: Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 13 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 54 of 99 The firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, which is co-lead counsel for the plaintiff, was also counsel for the plaintiff class in the Prudential case. Thus, the adequacy of the plaintiff's representation is beyond reproach. Furthermore, the tremendous and unprecedented settlements which the Milberg firm has helped to secure for the plaintiff classes in both this case and the Prudential case are a testament to counsel's vigorous pursuit of the class interests. See Roy v. The Independent Order of Foresters, Civ. No. 97-6225 (SRC), slip op. at 32 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 1999). At the Settlement Hearing in the Chipcom litigation, for which LCSR attorneys were counsel, Judge Woodlock remarked: [I]t seems to me that the level of legal services, the quality of legal services, the attention to the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, and ultimately plaintiffs' class, was really very high quality and ought to be recognized by an appropriately high percentage figure here. Of course, I disagree on the merits of the case. That is not, however, to say that I disagree with the quality of the lawyering or disregarded the quality of the lawyering or thought that the quality of the lawyering was not at the highest level. To the contrary, I thought it was at the highest level and that ought also to be reflected here. See Nappo v. Chipcom Corp., CA-95-11114-WD (D. Mass.), Settlement Hearing Transcript dated June 26, 1997, at 13-14. NOTABLE CLIENTS Public Fund Clients · · Alaska State Pension Investment Board. LCSR was retained as panel counsel in September 2002. California Public Employees' Retirement System. LCSR has been selected by CalPERS, the nation's largest public investment fund, with over $150 billion in assets under management, to serve as outside counsel for securities class action and derivative litigation. California State Teachers' Retirement System. LCSR has been retained by CalSTRS, a $110 billion fund representing the retirement savings of thousands of California teachers, in a case against WorldCom. City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System (Ala.). LCSR represents the City of Birmingham, the lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action against Mattel Corporation. The case was settled for $122 million. The Cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Birmingham (Ala.) and fourteen counties in California. LCSR attorneys represented cities and counties in connection with claims filed against big tobacco companies for conspiracy to hide the truth regarding the damages related to smoking. In Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 14 of 56 · · · Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 55 of 99 connection with this litigation, LCSR has also worked closely with the attorneys general of several states, including the State of California. · City of South San Francisco. LCSR represents the City of South San Francisco in litigation regarding losses suffered from the purchase of WorldCom bonds. Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois, Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, Illinois State Board of Investment. LCSR represents these large retirement funds in litigation against WorldCom stemming from the funds' losses on WorldCom bonds. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA). LCSR represents LACERA, a $17 billion fund, in litigation regarding losses suffered by LACERA from purchases of WorldCom bonds and AOL Time Warner securities. The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission Employees' Retirement System. Milwaukee Employees' Retirement System. LCSR represents the Milwaukee Employees Retirement System in litigation involving the fund's losses on WorldCom bonds. Minnesota State Board of Investment. LCSR represents this $50 billion fund in litigation stemming from the fund's purchase of WorldCom bonds. Montana Board of Investment. LCSR represents Montana Board of Investments in a case stemming from the fund's purchase of WorldCom bonds. New Hampshire Retirement System. LCSR has been selected by the State of New Hampshire, with over $5 billion in assets under management, to serve as outside counsel for securities class action and derivative litigation. The New Hampshire Retirement System is lead plaintiff and LCSR is lead plaintiff's counsel in securities litigation against AT&T Corporation. The Regents of the University of California. LCSR has been retained by The Regents of the University of California to pursue securities class actions against Enron and Dynegy. The Regents serves as lead plaintiff in both actions. The Regents has also retained LCSR to pursue a private action against AOL Time Warner. State Universities Retirement System of Illinois. LCSR represents the State Universities Retirement System of Illinois in litigation regarding losses suffered from purchases of WorldCom bonds. State of Wisconsin Investment Board. LCSR represents this fund in actions related to purchases of WorldCom bonds and in a case against AOL Time Warner. Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System. LCSR has been retained as counsel to bring cases stemming from the fund's losses on WorldCom bonds. · · · · · · · · · · · Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 15 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 56 of 99 · Washington State Investment Board. LCSR represents the Washington State Investment Board as a class representative plaintiff in the Enron litigation and on an individual basis stemming from the Board's losses as a result of purchases of WorldCom bonds. West Virginia Investment Management Board. LCSR represents the West Virginia Investment Management Board in litigation stemming from the Board's losses as a result of purchases of WorldCom bonds. · Taft-Hartley Clients · Chemical Valley Pension Fund of West Virginia. LCSR was recently retained by this fund to pursue litigation on its behalf including securities cases against Pharmacia and Marsh & McLennan. Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity. LCSR represents this fund in litigation against the Coca-Cola Company where the Fund serves as lead plaintiff. Carpenters Pension Fund of Baltimore, Maryland. LCSR was recently retained by the Carpenters Pension Fund of Baltimore, Maryland. LCSR is currently monitoring the assets of this $135 million pension fund. Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois. LCSR was recently retained by Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, a nearly $1 billion fund located in Geneva, Illinois. Carpenters Pension & Annuity Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity. LCSR represents this $1.2 billion fund in litigation against US West. Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust (f/k/a Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern California). LCSR was recently retained by Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern California, a nearly $2.5 billion fund representing the retirement savings of carpenters in California, Nevada and Arizona. Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada. LCSR was recently retained to monitor the assets of this $322 million fund. Directors Guild of America-Producer Pension & Health Plans. LCSR is currently representing the $1.5 billion plan in an action stemming from the fund's purchase of WorldCom bonds. Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund. LCSR has recently represented these Taft-Hartley pension funds as lead plaintiff in several pending securities fraud class actions, including actions against the Clorox Company and America West Holdings Corp. This Fund is a class representative represented by LCSR in the Enron litigation. Heavy & General Laborers' Local 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds. · · · · · · · · · Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 16 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 57 of 99 · ILGWU National Retirement Fund, UNITE Staff Retirement Plan, ILGWU Eastern States Health & Welfare Fund, ILGWU Death Benefit Fund, ILGWU Escrow Fund and UNITE General Fund. LCSR is currently monitoring the assets of these six Taft-Hartley pension funds as well as advising them on litigation matters on a case-by-case basis. 1199 SEIU Greater New York Pension Fund. LCSR is representing Local 144 in several securities class actions, including actions against Proctor & Gamble Company, Honeywell Corporation and AT&T Corporation. Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund. LCSR was recently retained to represent this pension fund. Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund. Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan. LCSR is currently representing this $2.6 billion plan in connection with the plan's losses stemming from purchases of WorldCom bonds. New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund. LCSR is representing the New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund, the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action against Fruit of the Loom involving accounting fraud and over $70 million worth of insider trading. PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund. LCSR was recently retained by PACE, a nearly $2 billion fund representing the retirement savings of thousands of paper workers. Producers-Writers Guild of America Pension Plan. LCSR represents this $1.5 billion fund in litigation stemming from the fund's purchase of WorldCom bonds. Screen Actors Guild-Producers Pension and Health Plans. LCSR represents the Screen Actors Guild in litigation stemming from the Guild's purchase of WorldCom bonds. SEIU Staff Fund. LCSR has been retained by this $1.4 billion fund to monitor its portfolio. Southern California Lathing Industry Pension Fund. LCSR has been retained by this $92.9 million fund. United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund. LCSR has been retained by this $440 million union fund. The Fund served as lead plaintiff in litigation against Sprint. · · · · · · · · · · · Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 17 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 58 of 99 Additional Institutional Investors · Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView Collective Investment Fund. LCSR is retained by Amalgamated Bank to advise and represent its $7.2 billion Long View fund on securities fraud and corporate government matters. American International Group. LCSR has been retained by this $395.5 billion company in the WorldCom Bonds litigation. The Dot.Com Fund. LCSR represented the Dot.Com Fund, the lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action filed against VantageMED Corporation for selling millions of dollars worth of securities pursuant to a false registration statement and prospectus. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. LCSR has been retained by this $114 billion company in the WorldCom Bonds litigation. Standard Life Investments. LCSR has been retained by this 94 billion in the WorldCom Bonds litigation. · · · · Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 18 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 59 of 99 PROMINENT CASES THE FOLLOWING ARE PROMINENT CASES LITIGATED BY LCSR ATTORNEYS · In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., MDL 1023 (S.D.N.Y.). LCSR attorneys served as court-appointed co-lead counsel for a class of investors. The class alleged that the NASDAQ marketmakers set and maintained wide spreads pursuant to an industry wide conspiracy in one of the largest and most important antitrust cases in recent history. After three and one half years of intense litigation, the case was settled for a total of $1.027 billion, the largest antitrust settlement ever. An excerpt from the court's opinion reads: Counsel for the Plaintiffs are preeminent in the field of class action litigation, and the roster of counsel for the Defendants includes some of the largest, most successful and well regarded law firms in the country. It is difficult to conceive of better representation than the parties to this action achieved. · In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savings & Loan Sec. Litig., MDL 834 (D. Ariz.). LCSR attorneys served as the court-appointed co-lead counsel for a class of persons who purchased debentures and/or stock in American Continental Corp., the parent company of the now infamous Lincoln Savings & Loan. The suit charged Charles Keating, other insiders, three major accounting firms, three major law firms, Drexel Burnham, Michael Milken and others with racketeering and violations of securities laws. Recoveries totaled $240 million on $288 million in losses. A jury also rendered verdicts of more than $1 billion against Keating and others. · In re 3Com, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-97-21083-JW (N.D. Cal.). A hard-fought class action for federal securities law violations in which LCSR attorneys served as lead counsel for the class and obtained a recovery totaling $259 million. · Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 939359 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County). In this case R.J. Reynolds admitted "the Mangini action, and the way that it was vigorously litigated, was an early, significant and unique driver of the overall legal and social controversy regarding underage smoking that led to the decision to phase out the Joe Camel Campaign." · Cordova v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., No. 651824 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego County), and People v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 980864 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County). LCSR attorneys, as lead counsel in both these actions, played a key role in these cases which were settled with the attorneys general global agreement with the tobacco industry bringing $26 billion to the State of California as a whole and $12.5 billion to the cities and counties within California. · Does I, et al. v. The Gap, Inc., et al., No. 01 0031 (D. Northern Mariana Islands). In this groundbreaking case, LCSR attorneys represented a class of 30,000 garment workers who alleged that they had worked under sweatshop conditions in garment factories in Saipan that produced clothing for top U.S. retailers such as The Gap, Target and J.C. Penney. In the first action of its kind, LCSR attorneys pursued claims against the factories and the retailers alleging violations of RICO, the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP Firm Resume ­ Page 19 of 56 Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 20 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 60 of 99 Law of Nations based on the alleged systemic labor and human rights abuses occurring in Saipan. This case was a companion to two other actions: Does I, et al. v. Advance Textile Corp., et al., No. 99 0002 (D. Northern Mariana Islands) ­ which alleged overtime violations by the garment factories under the Fair Labor Standards Act ­ and UNITE, et al.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?