The Authors Guild et al v. Google Inc.

Filing 944

DECLARATION of Michael J. Boni (w/Exhibits A-E) in Support re: #942 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Costs.. Document filed by Paul Dickson, Joseph Goulden, The Author's Guild, Herbert Mitgang, Betty Miles, Daniel Hoffman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit F -- Declaration of Sanford P. Dumain, #2 Exhibit G -- Declaration of Robert J. LaRocca)(Boni, Michael)

The Author's Guild et al v. Google Inc.

Doc. 944 Att. 1

The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 05 CV 8136 (DC) EXHIBIT F to DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. BONI IN SUPPORT OF FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND APPLICATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE AUTHOR SUB-CLASS FOR AWARD OF FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS: DECLARATION OF SANFORD P. DUMAIN

Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------- --- -- ------------ -- ------------------ ---------- ------ --- - --- - x

The Authors Guild, Inc., Association of American
Publishers, Inc., et aL,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 05 CV 8136 (DC)
v.

FILED ELECTRONICALLY
Google Inc.,

Defendant.
---- ---- ------------- ------- -- --------------------- ------- ------ ---- --- - x

DECLARTION OF SANFORD P. DUMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE AUTHOR SUB-CLASS FOR THE AWAR OF FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS
I, Sanford P. Dumain, declare and state as follows:
1. I am a parer with the law firm of

Milberg LLP ("Milberg"). My firm served as

one of

the Counsel for the Author Sub-Class in the above-captioned action (the "Action"). My

firm paricipated directly in the prosecution and resolution ofthe Action. More specifically,
Milberg was actively involved in developing the facts and conducting legal research to fuher
support the pursuit of

plaintiffs' claims, including conducting a large scale document review of

over four million pages of documents produced by Google and the publisher plaintiffs, primarly
pertaining to Google's digitization plans and strategies.
2. I submit this Declaration in support of

the Author Sub-Class's Counsel's

application for an award of attorneys' fees for services in the Action, and for reimbursement of

expenses reasonably incurred in the course of such representation. The time expended in
preparing this Declaration is not included in this request.
3. The total number of

hours expended on this litigation by my firm is 4,519 hours.

The total

lodestar for my firm is $1,741,325.00

4. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is a detailed sumar indicating the

amount of

time spent by the parers, associates, and professional staff of

my firm who were

involved in this litigation, and the lodestar calculation based on my Milberg's curent biling
rates. The schedule was prepared from contemporaneous, daily time records regularly prepared
and maintained by my firm, which are available at the request of

the Court.

5. The hourly rates for the attorneys and professional staff

in my firm included in

Exhibit A are the same as the regular, current rates charged for their services in non-contingent
matters and/or which have been accepted and approved by courts in other class action litigation.

6. My firm's lodestar figures are based upon the firm's biling rates, which rates do
not include charges for expense items. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are

not duplicated in my firm's biling rates.
7. As detailed in Exhibit B, my firm has incurred a total of $7,964.80 in un-

reimbursed expenses in connection with the prosecution of this litigation.
8. The expenses incured in this action are reflected on the books and records of

my

firm. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records and other

source materials and represent an accurate recordation of the expenses incured.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a brief biography of

my firm and attorneys in my

firm who were principally involved in this litigation.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tre and correct. Executed on this
8th day of

February 2010 at New York, New York.

Sanford P. Dumain

~

2

Exhibit A

Exhibit A
The Authors Guild, Inc., Associaton of

American Publihers. Inc.. et uL v. Google Inc.
Time Report

Milberg LLP
Reporting Period: Inception to February 5, 2010

Catel!ories:
A

Pre-Filing Investigation

B C
D

Pleadngs
Briefs, Motions, Research
Discovery

E F
Cour Appearances, Trial, Appeal

Settement
Case Management & Strategy

G

Name Status' ABC D E F G Hours ~ Lodestar
, '.~.' .¿:¿¿ ,., """'..~~'~~'j:..,.f~:~¿. ....,

Total Hourly Total

, ",:I~:~~,:..:~ii¿:I~ ., "":':~~~~~:1 ~,.~" .,..,,,,2'~i~:¿t .,' :¿~ ..... :'I:':I~;i:;~~",~~:

~~~:~"gf~~~s:"""'" .,., "'~'" ..," ..., ,', ., ..,.. '.' .'.,,¿¿~ ....,

Miler, ArurR. SC 0.00 0.00 0.75! 0.00 0.00 17.00 0.25 ¡ 18.00 i 995 ¡ 17910.00

Tham Michelle CA 0.00 0.00 0.00 i 336.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 ' 340.75 i 280 ¡ 95,410,00

:ç.~~i~!;_S~~."_.......,....._.._ _.........L.. .... .::..::..::=::::Q:qg. ::::::::::::::Q.Qii: ::::::::'.' :::::úQ:I:::::::::::::,.Q;iiQ:::::::.. :', ::::iiiQ.. . ::::::::'. :::::~:qQ: :::. :::::..:::::Ùg:l :::::.::_:::::=:i:.á.r.'.:::.:::i~i:::::.',::,.L.::::., :::::'.' ::2gÚg::

Leifer, David PL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,25 0.00 ! 10.25 ; 285 i 2,921.25

~ox~~~~~~~~~DC=~0.00.. 0.00 . I 50 i 0.00. 0.00 0.00~:~==~~~j~j~:~~!_::J~=~~~ ~ ~ . 3J~~ ~3~~~~~=~~J~~:-~:~~ . 12.001. 13.50 ¡ 240 ¡ 3,240,00 C , Lindbergh .

Solon. Sarah SA 0.00 0.00 6.00 i 0.00 0.00 49.50 0.00 ! 55.50 i 260 ! 14,430.00

'Status: P=Parter, A=Associate, SC=Special Counsel, CA=Contract Attorney, I=Investigator, PL=Paralegal, \ DC=Document Clerk, LS=Litigation Support, SA=Summer Associate

Exhibit B

Exhibit B
The Authors Guild. Inc.. Association of

American Publishers. Inc.. et 01. v. Google Inc.
Expense Report

MilbergLLP
Reporting Period: Inception to February 5, 2010

S:_~PJ?~!~~_~~_~l~~!~?~!~_R.7.._e_~~~_ _.._.. _.. __________ __ ______.. __ __ __ __ __ ____ __ _ _ _.... __ ____ __ _ ______ ___.. __ _ ____ _____________ .___ E~?;.~Q__
,~~~!! .~j!n,~..... ~.d_ f?n..~l!~n!X~~.. _. _ __ ,. ___ ____ ._____ __ ___ _ _.. _ __ ____ ___________ __.. _ __ _. _..w . ____._ ___ ___. ____ ___ __ ___. _____.. _. _6.JQQQ: QQ..

.f !!i~~~ S_t:i:~~~. T !~~~~pL~g_!Yj!~~~~J: ~~.... _______..,,'______. _.. ___ __ _.. ___________._ __ __ _.... _ _" ,,___. ~~~.m ___m m_ mm.... m",_._ ._.. '" _... _. _ .?2.~: QL
.L..Cli:g..~i~!~~.~ l~~e.£nS'.I!I:... ..._... .............. _...... ..._...... ....... ........ ..'.._....,.._ ......... ..... .... ....._ ......... _ .......... ....... . ...... .......... _....... ......_ .._........ ..... ............ ......... .....Q:.~! ....

.rh.?~~~?Pl.i~~J!~~l~.dJp.~~..Cll!l!~i:~i~l.?~J!.!~!p~L~?PYJ..~J';l..... ........._.........................._ ............_...... _...._......._ ........................__....................l-!:QQ...

..r~sy~l'~~.Q~~~i&~g?eJ!y.e!Yjr!~i;?'!..1JS2...........__....__......_......__.......................___....._......... ...............__...._.._._......_.._......__........_1..~!:~~_.

Travel Meals and Lod in 226.47

Exhibit C

.~:~:0. MILBERG

.::.::. LLP
EXHIBITC
THE FIRM'S PRACTICE AND ACHIEVEMENTS

YORK LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT
NEW

the first law firms to prosecute class actions in federal Milberg LLP, founded in 1965, was one of cours on behalf of investors and consumers. The Firm pioneered this tye of litigation and is widely recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of corporate and other large-scale wrongdoing. The Firm's practice focuses on the prosecution of class and complex actions in many fields of litigation, including securties, corporate fiduciary, ERISA, consumer, insurance, antitrust, commercial
banptcy, mass tort, and human rights litigation. The Firm has offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Tampa, and Detroit.

In the Firm's early years, its founding parners built a new area oflegal practice in representing shareholder interests under the then recently amended Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allowed securties fraud cases, among others, to proceed as class actions. In the following decades, the Firm obtained decisions establishing important legal precedents in many of its areas of practice and prosecuted cases that set benchmarks in terms of case theories, organization, discovery, tral results, methods of settlement, and amounts recovered and distrbuted to clients and class members.
Important milestones in the Firm's early years include the Firm's involvement in the us.
Financial

litigation in the early 1970s, one of the earliest large class actions, which resulted in a $50 milion recovery for purchasers of the securties of a failed real estate development company; the Ninth Circuit decision in Blackie v. Barrack in 1975, which established the fraud-on-the-market doctrine for
securties fraud actions; the Firm's co-lead counsel position in the In re Washington Public Power

Supply System ("WPPSS") Securities Litigation, a seminal securties fraud action in the 1980s in terms of complexity and amounts recovered; the representation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in a year-long trial to recover baning losses from a major accounting firm, leading to a precedentsetting global settlement; attacking the Drexel-Milken "daisy chain" of ilicit jun-bond financing
arangements with numerous cases that resulted in substantial recoveries for investors; representing life

insurance policyholders defrauded by "vanshing premium" and other improper sales tactics and obtaining large recoveries from industry paricipants; and ground-breakng roles in the multi-front attack on deception and other improper activities in the tobacco industry.
Milberg remains at the forefront in its areas of practice. Significant litigation results include: Tyco International Ltd Securities Litigation ($3.2 bilion settlement); Nortel Networks Litigation (settlement for cash and stock valued at $1.142 bilion); Lucent Technologies Securities Litigation ($600 millon recovery); Raytheon Co. Securities Litigation ($460 milion recovery); Managed Care Litigation (recoveries over $l bilion and major changes in HMO practices); the WPPSS Securities Litigation (settlements totaling $775 milion), and the NASDAQ Market Makers Antitrust Litigation ($l bilion in recoveries). Milberg has been responsible for recoveries valued at approximately $55 bilion durng the life of the Firm.
Milberg is consistently active in pro bono litigation, higWighted by its leadership role in the
Swiss Bank Litigation, which led to the recovery of $1.25 bilion from Swiss bans to benefit victims of

the Holocaust, and the Firm's efforts representing claimants ofthe September 1l Victim Compensation
Fund.
One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119 . T 212.594.5300 . F 212.868.1229 . milberg.com

.",:.;,,+ LLP .. MILBERG
.~~s:.

NEW

YORK

LOS ANGELES
TAMPA DETROIT

The Firm's lawyers come from many different professional backgrounds. They include former

judges, professors, prosecutors, private defense attorneys, and governent lawyers. The Firm's ability to pursue claims against defendants is augmented by its team of investigators, headed by a 27 -year forensic accountants and financial veteran ofthe Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, a full-time staff of analysts, and an in-house litigation support deparent with data hosting capabilities, staffed by electronic discovery specialists.

For more information, please visit ww.milberg.com.

Judicial Commendations
Milberg has been commended by countless judges throughout the country for the quality of its the largest in history, in In re Tyco International, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 02-1335 (D.N.H. Dec. 19,2007), Judge Barbadoro lauded Milberg's efforts as co-lead counsel:
representation. In approving a $3.2 billon securties fraud settlement, one of

This was an extraordinarly complex and hard-fought case. Co-Lead Counsel put massive resources and effort into the case for five long years, accumulating (milions of dollars in expenses) and expending (hundreds of hours) on a wholly contingent basis. But for Co-Lead thousands of time, money, and effort, they would Counsel's enormous expenditue of not have been able to negotiate an end result so favorable for the class. . . . Lead Counsel's continued, dogged effort over the past five years is a major reason for the magnitude ofthe recovery. . . .
Simon v. KPMG LLP, No. 05-3l89, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35943, at *18, 30-31 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006), a case in which Milberg served as class counsel, Judge Cavanaugh, in approving the $153 millon settlement, found that "Plaintiffs. . . retained highly competent and qualified attorneys" and that "(t)he Initial Complaint. . . demonstrates that (Milberg) expended considerable time and effort with the
In

underlying factual and legal issues in this case before even fiing ths lawsuit. . .. Settlement

discussions were conducted over a period of some foureen months with the supervision and guidance of Judges Politan and Weinstein, and are evidence of (Milberg's) appreciation ofthe merits and complexity
of this litigation."

In In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00-621, slip op. at 14-15,26 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2004), Judge Pisano issued an opinion approving the $600 milion settlement and complimenting Milberg's work as co-lead counsel for the class as follows:
(T)he attorneys representing the Plaintiffs are highly experienced in securties class action litigation and have successfully prosecuted numerous class actions throughout the United States. They are more than competent to conduct this action. Co-Lead Counsel diligently and aggressively represented the Plaintiffs before this Cour and in the
negotiations that resulted in the Settlement. . .. (T)he efforts and

Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel resulted in an extremely ingenuity of valuable Settlement for the Benefit of the Class.
2

One Pennsylvania Plaza' New York, New York 10119. T 212.594.5300' F 212.868.1229. milberg.com

:.¿. *

MILBERGLLP

NEW

YORK

LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT

In In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 269 F. Supp. 2d 603, 611 (E.D. Pa. 2003), Judge Dalzell commented on the skill and efficiency of the Milberg attorneys litigating this complex case:
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, we pause to say a specific word
about. . . the skil and efficiency of the attorneys involved. (Milberg was)

extraordinarly deft and efficient in handling this most complex matter. (T)hey were at least eighteen months ahead of the United States
Deparment of Justice in ferreting out the conduct that ultimately resulted in the wrte-down of over $1.6 billon in previously reported Rite Aid
earings. . .. In short, it would be hard to equal the skil class counsel

demonstrated here.

In In re IKON Offce Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, 194 F.R.D. l66, 195 (E.D. Pa. plaintiffs' co-lead 2000), Judge Katz commented on Milberg's skil and professionalism as one of
counsel:

First, class counsel is of high caliber and has extensive experience in the co-lead counsel firms has a similar class action litigation. . .. Each of national reputation for advocacy in securties class actions, and there is no doubt that this standing enhanced their ability both to prosecute the case effectively and to negotiate credibly. . . .

Of paricular note in assessing the quality of representation is the professionalism with which all paries comported themselves. The submissions were of consistently high quality, and class counsel has been notably diligent in preparing filings in a timely maner even when under tight deadlines. This professionalism was also displayed in class counsel's willngness to cooperate with other counsel when appropriate. . .. This cooperation enabled the paries to focus their disputes on the issues that mattered most and to avoid pointless bickering over more minor matters.

In In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, 187 F.R.D. 465,474 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), in an opinion approving settlements totaling over $1.027 bilion, Judge Sweet commented:
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are preeminent in the field of class action litigation, and the roster of counsel for Defendants includes some of the
largest, most successful and well regarded law firms in the countr. It is
difficult to conceive of

better representation than the paries to this action

achieved.
Milberg's excellence is not limited to cours within the United States. In In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 02-3400 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), Milberg
Judicial recognition of

litigated a discovery dispute before the English Royal High Cour of Justice, Queens Bench Division, which recognized the Milberg attorney handling the matter as a "Grade A" lawyer and a "vital cog in the machine." Likewise, in Sharma v. Timminco Ltd., 09-378701 (Can. Onto Sup. Ct. 2009), Canada's
Ontaro Superior Cour of Justice recognized Milberg's "fine reputation and excellent credentials" in

connection with Milberg's representation in a securities case pending in Canada.
One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119. T 212.594.5300. F 212.868.1229' milberg.com
3

.0:.:*..0:. LLP ..:* MIL BERG .

YORK LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT
NEW

Milberg has also been recognized for its commitment to public service. In lauding Milberg's the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center in connection with work representing victims of the September II Victims Compensation Fund, Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg stated the following:

Once again, as I have leared over the years here in New York, the (Milberg) firm steps up to the
plate in the public interest time and time again. The social conscience of the (Milberg) firm,

acting though its excellent associates and parters, help deal with crises that confront the American people and others, and I am personally in the debt of Milberg. . . for the work that it is doing . . .. (T)hey are second among none in terms of the public interest, and I'm very, very grateful, not only to you guys for doing ths, but. . . for the firm's wilingness to help out. I wanted to let everybody know that.
In re September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, Preliminar Hearng, Claim No. 212-003658 (Dec. 9 2003).

Noteworthy Results

Milberg's representation is fuher evidenced by the Firm's numerous significant recoveries, some of which are described below.
The quality of

· In re Initial Public Offering Securities

$586 milion settlement on October 6,2009, the
court described the law firms comprising the

Litigation, No. 21-92 (S.D.N.Y.). Milberg
represented investors in 310 consolidated

securities actions arising from an alleged market manipulation scheme. Plaintiffs alleged, among

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee as the "cream of the crop."
· Carlson v. Xerox, No. 00-1621 (D. Conn).

other things, that approximately 55 defendant

investment bans, in dealing with certain of
their clients, conditioned certin allocations of

Milberg served as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit, which consolidated 21 related cases
alleging violations of

shares in initial public offerings on the
subsequent purchase of more shares in the

the federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs alleged that Xerox and several of its

aftermarket, thus arificially boosting the prices
of the subject securities. This fraudulent

top officers reported false financial results
during the class period and failed to adhere to
the standard accounting practices the company

scheme, plaintiffs alleged, was a major
contributing factor in the now infamous

claimed to have followed. In the course of
litigating plaintiffs' claims, Milberg engaged in arduous and exhaustive factual discovery, including review and analysis of more than four
milion pages of complex accounting and

the late 1990s and early 2000s. As a member of the court-appointed
technology "bubble" of

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, and with
certain parters appointed by the court as liaison

counsel, Milberg oversaw the efforts of
approximately 60 plaintiffs' firms in combating
some of the most well-respected defense firms
in the nation. In granting final approval to a

auditing documents and thousands of pages of
SEC deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs' claims
survived three motions to dismiss and a motion

for summary judgment, ultimately resulting in a

One Pennsylvania Plaza' New York, New York 10119 . T 212.594.5300' F 212.868.1229' milberg.com

4

,,0:40:*+

..,,,''~,.4+. .; ..4

.MILBERGLLP
$750 milion settlement, which received final
approval on Januar 14,2009.

NEW YORK
LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT
defrauded investors, alleging that defendants

made a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Canadian company

· In re Tyco International Ltd., Securities
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 02-1335 (D.N.H.).

Milberg served as co-lead counsel in this

litigation, which involved claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Tyco and its
former CEO, CFO, general counsel, and certain

Biovail's publicly reported financial results and the company's then new hypertensionllood pressure drug, Cardizem LA. This was a highly complex case in which counsel took numerous

depositions across the U.S. and Canada and

obtained documents from defendants and
several third-parties, including, among others,

former directors arising out of allegations of
Tyco's $5.8 bilion overstatement of income

UBS, McKinsey & Co., and Merril Lynch.
Milberg obtained a $138 milion settlement for the class, and Biovail agreed to institute
significant corporate governance changes.
· In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities

and $900 milion in insider trading, plus hundreds of milions of dollars looted by
insiders motivated to commit the fraud.
Plaintiffs also asserted claims under the 1933
and 1934 Acts against PricewaterhouseCoopers

Litigation, No. 01-1855 (S.D.N.Y.). In this
federal securities fraud class action, Milberg

LLP for allegedly publishing false audit
opinions on Tyco's financial statements during
the class period and failing to audit Tyco

served as lead counsel for the class and the
court-appointed lead plaintiff, the Trustees of
the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union

properly, despite knowledge of the fraud. On December 19, 2007, the court approved a $3.2
bilion settlement of the plaintiffs' claims and
praised the work of co-lead counseL.

Pension Plan Trust Fund. In certifying the
class, the court specifically rejected the

defendants' argument that those who traded in

· In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Securities

Norte1 securities on the Toronto Stock
Exchange (and not the New York Stock

Litigation, No. 02-7527 (N.D. IlL). This case
involved allegations that Sears concealed material adverse information concerning the

Exchange) should be excluded from the class.

The Second Circuit denied the defendants'
attempted appeaL. On Januar 29, 2007, the
court approved a settlement valued at $1.142

financial condition, performance, and prospects of Sears' credit card operations, resulting in an

arificially inflated stock price. The approved
settlement provided $215 milion to compensate class members.
· In re General Electric Co. ERISA Litigation,

bilion.
· In re American Express Financial Advisors

Securities Litigation, No. 04-1773 (S.D.N.Y.).
This case involved allegations that American

No. 04-1398 (N.D.N.Y.). This ERISA class action was brought on behalf of current and
former paricipants and beneficiaries of the General Electric ("G.E.") 401(k) Plan. Milberg, serving as co-lead counsel, achieved a $40

Express Financial Advisors violated securities laws by representing to class members that the company would provide tailored financial
advice, when the company actually provided

milion settlement on behalf of current and
former G .E. employees who claimed that the company's 40l(k) Plan fiduciaries imprudently

"caned" fmancial plans and advice designed to steer clients into American Express and certin

nonproprieta mutual funds. The case settled
for $100 milion, with the settlement agreement requiring that the company institute remedial measures.
· In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities

invested more than two-thirds of the Plan's assets in company stock. The settlement included important strctural changes to G .E.' s
401(k) plan valued at more than $100 milion.
· In re Biovail Corp. Securities Litigation, No.

03-8917 (S.D.N.Y.). Milberg, representing
Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund and serving as
co-lead counsel, litigated this complex securities
class action brought on behalf of a class of

Litigation, No. 00-621 (D.N.J.). In ths federal securities fraud action in which Milberg served as co-lead counsel, plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Lucent and its senior officers misrepresented the demand for
5

One Pennsylvania Plaza' New York, New York 10119 . T 212.594.5300' F 212.868.1229' milberg.com

NEW

YORK

:,~ï:~:MI L BER G LLP

LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT

Lucent's optical networking products and improperly recognized hundreds of milions of dollars in revenues. The settlement
provided compensation of $600 milion to

improprieties and issued false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the price of

CVS stock. On September 7, 2005, Judge
Tauro approved a $110 milion cash settlement

aggrieved shareholders who purchased Lucent stock between October 1999 and
December 2000.

for shareholders who acquired CVS stock
between Februar 6, 2001 and October 30,
2001.

.

In re Raytheon Securities Litigation, No. 9912142 (D. Mass.). This case, in which Milberg
served as lead counsel, concerned claims that a major defense contractor failed to write down

.

Scheiner v. i2 Technologies, Inc., No. 01-418

this securities fraud case, fied on behalf of certain purchasers of i2 common stock. The
plaintiffs alleged that certin of the company's senior executives made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in i2's
public statements and other public documents

(N.D. Tex.). Milberg served as lead counsel in

assets adequately on long term constrction contracts. In May 2004, Raytheon and its
auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, settled for a total of $460 milion.

.

In In re Rite Aid Securities Litigation, No. 991349 (E.D. Pa.), in which Milberg served as co-

regarding i2' s softare, thereby arificially
inflating the price of i2's common stock. In May 2004, Milberg recovered a settlement of
$84.85 milion.

lead counsel, the plaintiffs asserted federal
securities fraud claims arising out of allegations
that Rite Aid failed to disclose material

.

In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA

problems with its store expansion and

modernization program, resulting in arificially inflated earnings. Judge Dalzell approved class action settlements totaling $334 milion against Rite Aid ($207 milion), KPMG ($125 milion), and certain former executives of Rite Aid ($1.6
million).

Litigation, No. 04-1398 (D.N.J.). This was an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty class action

against the Royal Dutch/Shell Oil Group of

Companies on behalf of certain of the
companies' u.S. employee investment plan
paricipants. Notably, the $90 milion
settlement iricluded important provisions

.

In In re CMS Energy Corp. Securities
Litigation, No. 02-72004 (B.D. Mich.), a federal
securities fraud case arsing out of alleged

regarding the monitoring and training of
individuals appointed to be ERISA fiduciaries.

.

Milberg served as co-lead counsel in Irvine v.
ImClone Systems, Inc., No. 02-0109

round-trip trading practices by CMS Energy Corporation, Judge Steeh approved a cash settlement of more than $200 milion. Milberg
served as co-lead counsel in this litigation.

.

In re Deutsche Telekom AG Securities
Litigation, No. 00-9475 (S.D.N.Y.). Milberg served as co-lead counsel in this securities class action alleging that Deutsche Telekom issued a

settlement was approved by the court in July 2005. Plaintiffs alleged that ImClone issued a number of misrepresentations and fraudulent
statements to the market regarding the
likelihood of approval of the drug Erbitux,

(S.D.N.Y.), in which a $75 milion cash

thereby artificially inflating the price of
ImClone stock.

false and misleading registration statement,
which improperly failed to disclose its plans to acquire Voice Stream Wireless Corporation and
materially overstated the value of the

.

In In re W.R. Grace & Co. (Offcial Committee
of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants v. Sealed Air. Corp. and Offcial Committee of

company's real estate assets. On June 14,2005,

Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants v.
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.), Nos.
02-2210 and 02-221 i (D. DeL.), Milberg acted
as lead counsel for the asbestos personal injury

Judge Buchwald approved a $120 milion cash
settlement.

.

In re CVS Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 01-

11464 (D. Mass). Milberg served as co-lead
counsel in this class action alleging that

and propert damage committees in two

defendants engaged in a series of accounting

separate fraudulent conveyance actions within the W.R. Grace bankrptcy. The actions sought
to return the assets of Sealed Air Corporation

One Pennsylvania Plaza' New York, New York 10119. T 212.594.5300' F 212.868.1229' milberg.com

6

."...~ MILBERG .: . %: ' ~~~:%.. LLP
and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings (each of which had been Grace subsidiaries pre-

NEW

YORK

LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT

Committee in the massive litigation resulting

from the Exxon Valdez oil spil in Alaska in
March 1989. Plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict
of $5 bilion, which, after years of appeals by

bankrptcy) to the W.R. Grace bankptcy
estate. Complaints in both cases were fied in

mid-March 2002, and agreements in principle in both cases were reached on November 27,2002,
the last business day before tral was set to

Exxon, was reduced to approximately $500 milion by the United States Supreme Court.

begin in the Sealed Air matter. The two
settlements, which consisted of both cash and stock, were valued at approximately $1 bilion.

Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs are entitled

to post judgment interest on the award in the amount of approximately $470 milion. Exxon
is presently seeking a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit on an issue involving the award of costs.
· In In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL 1334
(S.D. Fla.). Final approval of a settlement

· Nelson v. Pacifc Life Insurance Co., No. 03131 (S.D. Ga.). Milberg served as lead counsel in this securities fraud class action arising from
allegations of deceptive sales of deferred

annuity tax shelters to investors for placement
in retirement plans that are already tax-

qualified. The court approved a $60 milion
settlement of claims arising from such

between a nationwide class of physicians and defendant CIGNA Healthcare, valued in excess of $500 milion, was granted on April 22, 2004. A similar settlement valued in excess of $400
milion involving a nationwide class of

deception.

· The Firm was lead counsel in In re Prudential
Insurance Co. Sales Practice Litigation, No.

physicians and Aetna was approved by the court

95-4704 (D.NJ.), a landmark securities case
that resulted in a recovery exceeding $4 bilion
for certin Prudential policyholders. The settlement was approved in a comprehensive

on November 6, 2003. The settlements stem from a series of lawsuits fied in both state and
federal courts by physicians and medical
associations against many of

the nation's largest

Third Circuit decision.
· In In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust

health insurers arising from allegations that the insurers engaged in a fraudulent scheme to systematically obstrct, reduce, delay, and deny

Litigation, No. 94-3996 (S.D.N.Y.), Milberg
served as co-lead counsel for a class of

payments and reimbursements to health care
providers. These settlements brought sweeping

changes to the health care industr and

investors. The class alleged that the NASDAQ

significant improvements to physician-related
business practices.

market-makers set and maintained wide spreads
pursuant to an industr-wide conspiracy in one

of the largest and most importt antitrst cases
in recent history. After more than three years of intense litigation, the case settled for a total of

· In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, No. 988258 (S.D. Fla). Milberg acted as co-lead

counsel for the class. Plaintiffs alleged that
Sunbeam, its auditor, and its management

$1.027 bilion, one of the largest antitrst
settlements at that time.
· In re Washington Public Power Supply System

engaged in a massive accounting fraud which
led to a restatement of over three years of

Securities Litigation, MDL 551 (D. Ariz.) was a massive securities fraud litigation in which Milberg served as co-lead counsel for a class that obtained settlements totaling $775 milion,
the largest-ever securities fraud settlement at

previously reported financial results. The court approved a combined settlement of more than
$140 milion, including a $110 milion settlement with Arhur Andersen LLP,

that time, after several months of triaL.
· In re Exxon Valdez, No. 89-095 (D. Ak.) and

In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spil Litigation, 3 AN89-2533 (Ak. Sup. Ct. 3d Jud. Dist.). Milberg is

Sunbeam's auditor. At that time, the Andersen settlement was one of the largest amounts ever paid by a public accounting firm to settle federal securities claims. The settlement with the individuals was achieved on the eve of trial, and ended almost four years of litigation against
Andersen and Sunbeam's insiders, including
Albert Dunlap, Sunbeam's former Chairman

a member of the Plaintiffs' Coordinating
Committee and co-chair of the Plaintiffs' Law

One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119. T 212.594.5300. F 212.868.1229' milberg.com

7

.o/~.:&. MI LBERG

t~:.::. llP
and CEO. The settlement included a personal
contribution from Dunlap of $15 milion.
· In re Triton Energy Limited Securities

NEW

YORK

LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT

staring in 1993. Defendants included major

long-distance companies, which approved the

Litigation, No. 98-256 (E.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented, among
other things, the nature, quality, classification,

call programs and biled for the calls. Defendant MCI settled for $60 milion in benefits. The class against AT&T was
decertified on appeal and the Fir prosecuted
the individual plaintiffs' claims, obtaining a

and quantity of Triton's Southeast Asia oil and
gas reserves during the period March 30, 1998

jury verdict in 2003 for compensatory and punitive
damages.
In the context of shareholder derivative

through July 17, 1998. The case settled for $42

milion. · In In re Thomas & Betts Securities Litigation, No. 00- 2127 (W.D. Tenn), the plaintiffs, represented by Milberg as co-lead counsel,
alleged that Thomas & Betts engaged in a series
of accounting improprieties while publicly

actions, Milberg has protected shareholder

investments by effectuating important changes in
corporate governance as par of the global settlement
of such cases. Cases in which such changes were

made include:
· In re Topps Co., Inc. Shareholder Litig., No.

representing that its financial statements were in compliance with GAAP, and failed to disclose known trends and uncertinties regarding its

600715/2007 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Apr. 17,2007). Milberg served as co-lead counsel in

internal control system and computer and
information systems. The case settled for $46.5

this transactional case, which led to a 2007
decision vindicating the rights of shareholders

milion dollars in cash from the company and
$4.65 in cash from its outside auditor, KPMG.

under the rules of comity and the doctrine of

forum non conveniens to pursue claims in the

· In re MTC Electronic Technologies
Shareholder Litigation, No. 93-0876

most relevant forum, notwithstanding the fact that jurisdiction might also exist in the state of

(E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
issued false and misleading statements

incorporation. This case was settled in late
2007 in exchange for a number of valuable disclosures for the class.
· In re Marketspan Corporate Shareholder

venture agreements to establish
telecommunications equipment in China. The

concerning, among other things, purported joint

telecommunications systems and manufactue

Litigation, No. 98-15884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). The

settlement agreement in this derivative case
required modifications of corporate governance
structue, changes to the audit committee, and

court approved a settlement of $70 milion,
including $65 milion in cash and $5 milion worth of MTC Class A shares with "put" rights. Webber Limited Partnerships · In In re Paine Litigation, No. 94-8547 (S.D.N.Y.). Milberg
represented investors alleging that Paine Webber
developed, marketed, and operated numerous investment parerships as part of an ongoing

changes in compensation awards and to the
nominating committee.

In re Trump Hotels Shareholder Derivative

Litigation, No. 96-7820 (S.D.N.Y.). In this
case, the plaintiff shareholders asserted various
derivative claims on behalf of the company

conspiracy to defraud investors and enrich itself through excessive fees and commissions over a twelve-year period. On March 20, 1997, Judge

against certain Trump entities and senior Trump

executives in connection with the self-serving sale of a failing casino to the company in which

Sidney Stein approved a $200 milion
settlement, consisting of $125 milion in cash and $75 millon worth of guarantees and fee
waivers.
· In

the plaintiffs held stock. Milberg negotiated a settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs that

required Donald Trump to contrbute a
substantial portion of his personal interest in a

Andrews v. AT&T, No. 91-175 (S.D. Ga.) the Firm represented a class of persons who paid for

pageant he co-owned. In addition, the
settlement required the company to increase the

premium-biled "900-number" calls that
involved allegedly deceptive games of chance,

number of directors on its board, and certain
future transactions had to be reviewed by a
special committee.
8

One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119 . T 212.594.5300 . F 212.868.1229 . milberg.com

.q:.:ll+ MILBERG ..~-.e..

"'';..'' LLP

NEW YORK
LOS ANGELES
TAMPA

DETROIT

Precedent-Setting Decisions

Milberg has consistently been a leader in
developing the federal securties, antitrust, and

consumer protection laws for the benefit of investors and consumers. The Firm has represented individual and institutional plaintiffs in hundreds of class action litigations in federal

derivative case in which Milberg serves as colead counsel, plaintiff shareholders sued certin of the company's offcers and directors based
on allegations of ilegal options backdating.

The lower court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the plaintiffs failed to make a presuit demand on the company's board, and that

and state cours throughout the countr. In most
of those cases, Milberg has served as lead or colead counsel. The Firm has also been responsible for establishing many important precedents, including the following:
· In re Lord Abbett Mutual Funds Fee

in any event, the board had already formed a
special committee to investigate the misconduct.

In this significant opinion reversing the lower
court's dismissal, the Appellate Division

clarified the standards of demand futility and

held that a board of directors loses the
protection of the business judgment rule where
there is evidence of the directors' self-dealing

Litigation, 553 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2009). This
importnt decision set significant precedent regarding the scope of preemption under the

and poor judgment. The court noted that the
mere creation of a special committee did not
justify a stay of the action and did not
demonstrate that the board took appropriate
steps. Rather, ''the pictue presented in the

Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of

1998 ("SLUSA"). In reversing the District
Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, the

Third Circuit held that "SLUSA does not
mandate dismissal of an action in its entirety
where the action includes only some pre-empted
claims." In so holding, the court explained that

complaint is that of a special committee taking a
tepid rather than a vigorous approach to the

"nothing in the language, legislative history, or relevant case law mandates the dismissal of an entire action that includes both claims that do not offend SLUSA's prohibition on state law securities class actions and claims that do. . . ."

misconduct and the resultant har. Under such circumstances, the board should not be provided with any special protection."

.

South Ferry LP #2 v. Kilinger, 542 F.3d 776
(9th Cir. 2008). The important opinion issued

by the Ninth Circuit in this securities fraud class
action clarified, in the post-Tellabs

· Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 170 (2d

Nigerian children and their families,

Cir. 2009). In this matter, the plaintiffs,
asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS") in connection with Pfizer's clinical

environment, whether a theory of scienter based on the "core operations" inference satisfies the PSLRA's heightened pleading standard. In

Milberg, the Ninth Circuit held that
"(a)llegations that rely on the core operations

siding with the plaintiffs, represented by
inference are among the allegations that may be considered in the complete PSLRA analysis." The court explained that under the "holistic"

tral of the drug, Trovan, without their

knowledge. In Januar 2009, the Second

Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiffs pled facts suffcient to state a cause of

approach required by Tellabs, all allegations
must be "read as a whole" in considering

action under the ATS for a violation of
international law prohibiting medical

whether plaintiffs adequately plead scienter.
After remand, the District Court found that the plaintiffs suffciently alleged scienter under the Ninth Circuit's analysis.

experimentation on human subjects without the their consent. Pfizer's petition for review of

Second Circuit's ruling by the United States
Supreme Court is currently pending.
· In re Comverse Technology, Inc., 866 N.Y.S.2d 10 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). In this

.

In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation, 536

FJd 1049 (9th Cir. 2008). In this securities
fraud class action in which Milberg represents
9

One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119. T 212.594.5300. F 212.868.1229. milberg.com

..,:~+. LLP
.;i;/Ii~,.):.

h"....?t MILBERG

NEW

YORK

LOS ANGELES TAMPA DETROIT
this issue is not appropriately resolved on a

the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit reversed the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint in
this opinion clarifying loss causation pleading

motion to dismiss.
In In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities

requirements. In ruling that the plaintiffs
adequately pled loss causation, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' complaint identified a "specific economic loss" following the issuance
of a specific press release, along with
allegations of misrepresentations that were

Litigation, No. 05-5571, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

19431 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2003), the court
upheld plaintiffs' claims, under Section 1 O(b) of

described in "abundant detaiL." The opinion
established that plaintiffs in a securities fraud

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from allegations that Vivendi and two of its former executives (CEO Jean-Marie Messier and CFO Guilaume Hannezo) did not disclose
to investors that: (1) Vivendi's corporate

action adequately plead loss causation where

they provide sufficient detail of their loss
causation theory and some assurance that the
theory has a basis in fact. Based on this

acquisition programs had brought Vivendi to the
brink of a potentially catastrophic liquidity

analysis, the dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Distrct Court for
further proceedings.

crisis; (2) although it consolidated the financial results of several majority-owned subsidiaries, Vivendi did not have access to the cash flows of these entities; (3) Vivendi failed to write down

bilions of dollars of impaired goodwil from
prior acquisitions; and (4) one of

In Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), in which Milberg is lead counsel for the class, the United States Supreme

Vivendi's U.S.

subsidiaries improperly recognized revenue "up
front" on the full value of long term contracts.

Court anounced a uniform stadard for
evaluating the suffciency of a complaint under the PSLRA. The court held that on a motion to dismiss, a court "must consider the complaint in its entirety," accepting "all factual allegations in
the complaint as tre," as well as "tak(ingJ into

The case is paricularly notable because the
court held that defendants' activities in New York promoting Vivendi stock was more than "merely preparatory" to the alleged fraudulent scheme, and thus the court had jurisdiction not only over purchasers of Vivendi ADRs on the NYSE, but also over the claims of foreign
purchasers who purchased Vivendi ordinary shares on foreign exchanges. The Distrct Court

account plausible opposing inferences." On
remand, the Seventh Circuit concluded that "the

plaintiffs have succeeded, with regard to the
statements identified in our previous opinion as having been adequately alleged to be false and material, in pleading scienter in conformity with the requirements of the PSLRA. We therefore adhere to our decision to reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing the suit." The
unanimous decision was written by Judge

later certified a class of purchasers from the

United States, France, England, and the
Netherlands, and denied defendants' motions

for summar judgment. The case is currently
being tred.

· Gebhardt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 335 F.3d
824 (8th Cir. 2003). This importnt decision

Richard A. Posner.

strongly reaffirmed the principle that whether an

· Asher v. Baxer International, Inc., 377 F.3d
727 (7th Cir. 2004). In reversing and

undisclosed fact would have been material to
investors cannot ordinarily be decided on a motion to dismiss. The Eighth Circuit, stressing that "(tJhe question of materiality hinges on the

remanding the District Court's dismissal, the Seventh Circuit resolved in plaintiffs' favor an important issue involving the PSLRA's "safe harbor" for forward-looking statements. The
court held that whether a cautionar statement is meaningful is an issue of fact, because whether a statement is meaningful or not depends in part on what the defendant knew when the statement was made as well as other issues of fact. Thus,

particular circumstances of the company in
question," observed that even relatively small

errors in financial statements might be material if they concern areas of paricular importnce to investors and raise questions about management integrity.
· In re Cabletron Systems, Inc., 311 F.3d 11 (1st

Cir. 2002). In this opinion, the First Circuit
One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119 . T 212.594.5300' F 212.868.1229' milberg.com
10

.4:.:*+ MILBERG

.::.::. LLP
joined the Second Circuit in allowing a
complaint to be based on confidential sources. The court also accepted the argument made by plaintiffs, represented by Milberg, that courts
should consider the amount of discovery taken

NEW

YORK

LOS ANGELES
TAMPA

DETROIT

under the PSLRA, scienter is sufficiently pled

by making an adequate showing that the
defendants acted knowingly or with reckless
disregard for the consequences of their actions.

The Third Circuit specifically adopted the
Second Circuit's scienter pleading standard for pleading fraud under the PSLRA.
· In Hunt v. Alliance North American

place prior to deciding a motion to dismiss, with
a lack of discovery resulting in a

correspondingly less stringent standard for
pleading securities fraud claims with

particularity .
· In Puckett v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 108802/98 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2002), a

class action was certified against Sony Music Entertainment on behalf of a class of recording
arists who were parties to standard Sony

Government Income Trust, Inc., 159 F.3d 723 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling, which denied plaintiffs leave to amend to assert a cause of action against defendants for failing to disclose that the

defendant Trust was unable to utilize proper "hedging" techniques to insure against risk of
loss. In the court's view, taken together and in

recording or production agreements entered into
during the class period. The complaint alleged

that Sony had a policy of treating the value
added tax on foreign sales of recordings

context, the Trust's representations would have misled a reasonable investor.

improperly thereby impermissibly reducing the royalties paid or credited to the class members.

In Shaw v. Digital Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194
(1st Cir. 1996), the First Circuit remanded

Justice DeGrasse of the New York State

plaintiffs' action after affirming, in part,
Milbergs' position that in association with the filing of a prospectus related to the issuance of
securities, a corporate-issuer must disclose

Supreme Court determined that class

certification was appropriate and that Gar Puckett (of Gar Puckett & the Union Gap) and
jazz musician and composer Robert Watson

intra-quarter, materially adverse changes in its

were appropriate class representatives to
represent the class of arists and producers to

business, if such adverse changes constitute "material changes" the disclosure of which is
required pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.
In re Salomon, Inc. Shareholders Derivative

whom Sony accounts for foreign record
royalties.

· Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000).

Litigation, 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995). The
Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding that derivative federal securities claims

The Firm was lead counsel in this seminal securities fraud case in which the Second
Circuit undertook an extensive analysis of the statutory text and the legislative history of the PSLRA and pre-existing Second Circuit case law. Among other things, the Second Circuit held that the PSLRA's pleading stadard for
scienter was largely equivalent to the preexisting Second Circuit standard and vacated

against defendants would not be referred to
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions

of the Rules of the New York Stock Exchange,
but would be tried in Distrct Court. Shortly

thereafter, the case settled for $40 millon.

· Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, 500 U.S. 90 (1991). The Supreme Court upheld the right
of a stockholder of a mutual fund to bring a

the District Court's dismissal which sought to impose a higher standard for pleading scienter

under the PSLRA. The Second Circuit also
rejected any general requirement that plaintiffs' confidential sources must be disclosed to satisfy

derivative suit without first making a pre-suit demand. Specifically, the Cour held that
"where a gap in the federal securities laws must
be bridged by a rule that bears on the allocation

the PSLRA's newly-enacted particularty
requirements.
· In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litigation, 180

of governing powers within the corporation,
federal courts should incorporate state law into

F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, the plaintiffs, represented by Milberg, successfully argued that

federal common law unless the particular state law in question is inconsistent with the policies underlying the federal statute. . .. Because a futility exception to demand does not impede
11

One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119 . T 212.594.5300. F 212.868.1229. milberg.com

+:*.i~:.

"+;.:$" LLP ." MILBERG
the regulatory objectives of the (Investment

NEW YORK
LOS ANGELES
TAMPA DETROIT

cited frequently in discussions as to the scope

Company Act), a court that is entertining a
derivative action under that statute must apply the demand futility exception as it is defined by the law of the State of incorporation."

and purpose of Section 1 6(b).

Heit v. Weitzen, 402 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1968).
The court held that liability under Section 1 O(b)

of the Securities Exchange Act extends to

· Mosesian v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.,
727 F.2d 873 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 932 (1984). The Ninth Circuit upheld an investor's right to pursue a class action against

defendants, such as auditors, who were not in privity with the named plaintiffs or the class

represented by the named plaintiffs.

an accounting firm, adopting statute of
limitation rules for Section 1 O(b) suits that are favorable to investors.
· Hasan v. CleveTrust Realty Investors, 729 F .2d

372 (6th Cir. 1984). The Sixth Circuit very strictly constred, and thus narrowed, the ability of a "special litigation committee" of the board of a public company to terminate a derivative
action brought by a shareholder.

· Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 692 F.2d 250 (2d
Cir. 1982), aff'd sub nom, Daily Income Fund,

Inc. v. Fox, 464 U.S. 523 (1984). The court
held that a Rule 23.1 demand is not required in
a shareholder suit brought pursuant to Section
36(b) of

the Investment Company Act.

· Rifin v. Crow, 574 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1978). The Fifth Circuit reversed an order granting

summary judgment for defendants in a Section
1 O(b) case, paving the way for future acceptance
of the "fraud-on-the-market" rationale in the
Fifth Circuit.

. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir.

1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976). This
is the seminal appellate decision on the use of

the "fraud-on-the-market" theory of reliance,

allowing investors who purchase stock at
artificially inflated prices to recover even if they
were personally unaware of the false and

misleading statements reflected in the stock's
price. In so holding, the court noted that class

actions are necessar to protect the rights of
defrauded purchasers of securities.
· Bershad v. McDonough, 300 F. Supp. 1051
(N.D. Il. 1969), aff'd, 428 F.2d 693 (7th Cir.

1970). In this case, the plaintiff, represented by Milberg, obtained summar judgment on a

claim for violation of Section 1 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, where the transaction
at issue was strctured by the defendants to look
like a lawful option. The decision has been
One Pennsylvania Plaza. New York, New York 10119. T 212.594.5300' F 212.868.1229. milberg.com
12

MILBERG LLP ATTORNEYS PRINCIPALLY INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION
SANFORD P. DUMIN attended Columbia University where he received his B.A. degree in 1978. He
graduated cum laude from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of

Yeshiva University in 1981.

Mr. Dumain represents plaintiffs in cases involving securities fraud, consumer fraud, insurance fraud,
and violations of the antitrst laws.

Mr. Dumain was co-lead counsel in the Tyco Securities Litigation in which $3.2 bilion was
recovered for investors. Mr. Dumain also served as lead counsel in the securities class actions against Nortel and Biovail, which are the highest and third highest recoveries ever in cases involving Canadian companies. The Nortel settlement was valued at over $1 bilion and Biovail settled for over $138 million in cash. Mr. Dumain successfully represented the City of San Jose, California against 13 of the City's broker-dealers and its outside accountants in connection with major losses in unauthorized bond trading.
Mr. Dumain began his career as a law clerk to Judge Warren W. Eginton, United States District

Court for the District of Connecticut 1981-1982. Durig the early years of his practice, he also served as
an Adjunct Instrctor in Legal Writing and Moot Court at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of

Law.

Mr. Dumain has lectured for ALI-ABA concerning accountats' liability and has prosecuted several
actions against accounting firms.

Mr. Dumain served on the trial team for a six-month trial in which the Fin represented the City of

San Jose, California, that resulted in a verdict for the City against the defendants for violations of the
securities laws. More recently, he was Co-Lead Counsel in the Tyco Securities Litigation in which a $3.2

bilion settlement was recovered for investors.

Judge Janet C. Hall of the District of Connecticut made the following comment in In re: Fine Host Securities Litigation, (No. 97-2619): "The court also finds that the plaintiff class received excellent
counseling, paricularly from the Chair of

the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Attorney Dumain."

Mr. Dumain is admittd to practice in the State of New York, United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of Colorado, and District of Connecticut, and
United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits.
Mr. Dumain is the Chair of

the Firm's Executive Committee.

ARTHU R. MILLER heads the Firm's appellate practice. He is the nation's leading scholar in the field of civil procedure, a subject about which he has authored or co-authored numerous articles and more than 40 books. These include his treatise, Federal Practice and Procedure, which is relied upon by federal judges throughout the countr as the principal authority on federal practice. He also wrote Civil Procedure, the casebook used by most U.S. law schools.

Professor Miler is currently a University Professor at New York University School of Law. This professorship is conferred on outstanding scholars in recognition of the interdisciplinar dimension and Law at Harvard, their work. Previously, Professor Miler was the Bruce Bromley Professor of breadth of
where he eared his law degree and taught for 36 years.

appellate courts. He has argued in all of

In recent years, Professor Miler has actively paricipated in numerous cases, paricularly in federal the U.S. Courts of Appeal and in the U.S. Supreme Court, most

recently in Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.

Professor Miler is the recipient of numerous awards, including five honorar doctorates, three
American Bar Association Gavel Awards and a Special Recognition Gavel Award for promoting public the law. A renowned commentator on law and society, he won an Emmy award for his understanding of work on "The Constitution: That Delicate Balance," an acclaimed PBS series he moderated. Professor Miler also served for two decades as the legal editor for ABC's Good Morning America. In addition, he

hosted the weekly television show Miler's Court for eight years and has commented regularly on legal matters for Court TV.

Professor Miler was appointed by two Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to serve as a
member and reporter on the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He has additionally served as reporter and advisor to the American Law Institute, and as a member

of various American Bar Association committees, among others. In addition, Professor Miler was
appointed by President Ford to serve on the United States Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Work.
RICHARD H. WEISS received an A.B. degree summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1979. In 1980, he received an M.Phil. degree in international relations from Cambridge University, England. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1983.

the Firm since 1993. His Richard Weiss has been at Milberg since 1990, and has been a parer of practice focuses primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors, as well as other complex civil

litigation. Mr. Weiss currently is one of plaintiffs' lead counsel in Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd v.
Tellabs, Inc. (N.D. Il.), in which the United States Supreme Court set the pleading standard for all federal
securities fraud cases. Mr. Weiss is also one of the attorneys leading the prosecution of

the Mercklioxx

securities litigation.

Mr. Weiss is admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and various other federal appellate courts, and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Weiss is a member of the Fir's
Diversity Committee.
CLIFFORD S. GOODSTEIN earned his A.B. degree from Harvard University in 1988 and his J.D.

Law in 1993. After graduation, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alex T. Howard, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, and then as an associate at Reboul, MacMurray, Hewitt, Maynard & Kristol, and
degree from New York University School of

Baker & Botts, prior to joining Milberg in January of 1998.

Mr. Goodstein practices in the areas of consumer fraud, securities, antitrst, and health care
litigation. Mr. Goodstein is a member of the bars of

New York and New Jersey.

PETER E. SEIDMAN eared his B.A., cum laude, from Hobar College in 1979, following which he

served as a Peace Corps volunteer living and working among the Guarani, an indigenous trbe in
Paraguay. He earned an M.A. degree in journalism in 1982 from the University of Michigan and
subsequently worked as a laude, from the University of journalist for a variety of

publications. In 1994, he eared a J.D. degree, cum

Michigan Law SchooL.

Mr. Seidman joined Milberg in 2000. His practice involves the investigation and prosecution of securities litigation on behalf of defrauded investors. Before joining Milberg, he was an associate with the New York law firm of Orans, Elsen & Lupert LLP, where he was active in both civil and white collar litigation in federal and state courts. criminal
Mr. Seidman is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United
States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of

New York.

LEIGH SMITH focuses her practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors. She

also has significant experience with complex commercial litigation. Her involvement in the In re Tyco
Intl Ltd Securites Litigation, No. 02-1335, helped recover an aggregate settlement of$3.2 bilion.

While at Rutgers University, Ms. Smith majored in French and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Sigma Iota. As a graduate student, she studied French literature and fim and spent a year in France
working as an assistat English teacher. Ms. Smith taught French at Rutgers and at the University of Iowa prior to law schooL. During law school, Ms. Smith served as the Acquisitions Editor for the Cornell

Journal of Law and Public Policy and was a member of

the Cornell Moot Court Board. She was a finalist in the Cuccia Cup Moot Court Competition and received a CALI Award for Outstanding Achievement for her work in Cornell's Legal Aid Clinic. She also was active in a number of student organizations.

Prior to joining Milberg, Ms. Smith worked at large law firms in New York and New Jersey. She is admitted in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District Massachusetts. New Jersey, and the Distrct of of New York, the District of
JENNIFER S. CZEISLER graduated from Hofstra University in 1994 with a B.A. degree in

psychology. After completing graduate degree work at Hunter School of Social Work (1994-95), she
pursued a J.D. degree, which she eared in 1999 from the University of Miami School of

Law, where she

graduated cum laude. Ms. Czeisler was on the editorial board of the Law Review of Psychology, Public

Policy & Law and eared numerous awards, including the CALI excellence for the Future Award, Dean's Certificate of Achievement Award, and membership in the Phi Delta Phi National Honor Society.

Ms. Czeisler is admitted to practice in the State of New York and is a member of the American Bar
Association, where she is committed to her pro bono work with the American Bar Association

Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly.

CHARLES SLIDDERS received his L.L.B., from Melbourne University in 1994, with honors, and his
L.L.M, from Monash University in 2002. Mr. Slidders is an experienced commercial

litigator with almost fifteen years of litigation experience. Prior to joining Milberg in 2008, Mr. Slidders was the principal and litigation firms. He has Melbourne, Australia's premier boutique commercial founding partner of one of frequently appeared in Australia's mainstream media in relation to his legal work.

Mr. Slidders has significant experience in plaintiffs' and class action litigation. He has acted in a
variety of matters involving Australia's antitrst (trade practices) laws, corporations law, and general

business and propert law.

Mr. Slidders has been influential in shaping the law in Australia. He precipitated the retrospective amendment of Victoria's domestic building laws after finding a loophole in the legislation that he successfully litigated before the Supreme Court of Victoria. He also initiated one of Australia's largest
multipart claims alleging breach of fiduciary duties by propert developers.

Mr. Slidders' finn was preferred counsel for Victoria's faring community through the Victorian Fanners Federation - the body representing more than 20,000 Victorian farmers. He has acted in
agribusiness matters involving trade practices issues against multinational grain trade companies (disputes

involving hundreds of milions of dollars of derivative contracts on the CBOT). He has also advised
shareholders in a derivative dispute with the management of one of Australia's leading egg wholesalers.
Mr. Slidders is admitted to the bar of

New York and is admitted to practice law in Victoria, Australia.