What Courts Say About Us

Courts throughout the United States have praised the work done by BR&B on behalf of injured investors and victims of price-fixing.

In In re Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-04-2147 PHX-JAT (D.Ariz.), Barrack, Rodos & Bacine was lead counsel for the institutional investor lead plaintiff and a class of injured investors it represented. BR&B secured a jury verdict for the full amount per share sought, which in the aggregate could exceed $200 million, the second largest securities litigation jury verdict since passage of the PSLRA. Although the case is now on appeal following rulings on post-trial motions, the court commented that trial counsel “brought to this courtroom just extraordinary talent and preparation.... The technical preparation, the preparation for your examination and cross-examination of witnesses has been evident in every single instance. The preparation for evidentiary objections and responses to those objections have been thorough and foresighted. The arguments that have been made in every instance have been well-prepared and well-presented throughout the case.* * * Likewise, for the professionalism and the civility that you -- and the integrity that you have all demonstrated and exuded throughout the handling of this case, it has just, I think, been very, very refreshing and rewarding to see that. * * * [W]hat I have seen has just been truly exemplary.”

In In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC), before Judge Denise L. Cote in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, BR&B was co-lead counsel for the institutional investor lead plaintiff and the class of injured investors and achieved settlements in excess of $6.13 billion. After a partial settlement with one group of defendants for in excess of $2.56 billion, the court stated that "the settlement amount ... is so large that it is of historic proportions." The court found that “Lead Counsel has performed its work at every juncture with integrity and competence. It has worked as hard as a litigation of this importance demands, which for some of the attorneys, including the senior attorneys from Lead Counsel on whose shoulders the principal responsibility for this litigation rests, has meant an onerous work schedule for over two years." The court further stated that “the quality of the representation given by Lead Counsel is unsurpassed in this Court’s experience with plaintiffs’ counsel in securities litigation. Lead Counsel has been energetic and creative. Its skill has matched that of able and well-funded defense counsel. It has behaved professionally and has taken care not to burden the Court or other parties with needless disputes. Its negotiations with the Citigroup Defendants have resulted in a settlement of historic proportions. It has cooperated with other counsel in ways that redound to the benefit of the class and those investors who have opted out of the class. The submissions of Lead Counsel to the Court have been written with care and have repeatedly been of great assistance." The court also found that “In sum, the quality of representation that Lead Counsel has provided to the class has been superb.”
In approving the final settlements totaling $3.5 billion, the court stated “The impressive extent and superior quality of Lead Counsel’s efforts as of May 2004 were described in detail in the Opinion approving the Citigroup Settlement. … At the conclusion of this litigation, more than ever, it remains true that ‘the quality of representation that Lead Counsel has provided to the class has been superb.’ … At trial against Andersen, the quality of Lead Counsel’s representation remained first-rate. .. The size of the recovery achieved for the class – which has been praised even by several objectors – could not have been achieved without the unwavering commitment of Lead Counsel to this litigation.” The court also stated that “Despite the existence of these risks, Lead Counsel obtained remarkable settlements for the Class while facing formidable opposing counsel from some of the best defense firms in the country;” and “If the Lead Plaintiff had been represented by less tenacious and competent counsel, it is by no means clear that it would have achieved the success it did here on behalf of the Class.”
“It is only the size of the Citigroup and Underwriters’ Settlements that make this recovery so historic, and it is likely that less able plaintiffs’ counsel would have achieved far less.”

In In re Cendant Corporation Litigation, No. 98-CV-1664 (WHW) (D.N.J.), before Judge William H. Walls in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, BR&B was co-lead counsel for co-lead plaintiff institutional investors and the class of injured investors they represented. BR&B achieved settlements with defendants in excess of $3.18 billion, more than three times the size of the next highest recovery ever achieved in a securities law class action suit at that time. The Cendant settlement included what was, at the time, the largest amount by far ever paid in a securities class action by an issuing company (which, many years later, remains the second largest ever paid) and what was, and remains, the largest amount ever paid in a securities class action by an auditor. The Cendant settlement further included extensive corporate governance reforms, and one-half the net recovery that Cendant and certain of its affiliated individuals recovered in litigation against CUC’s former auditor. The court stated that "we have all been favored with counsel of the highest competence and integrity and fortunately savvy in the ways of the law and the market.” The court found that the "standing, experience and expertise of counsel, the skill and professionalism with which counsel prosecuted the case and the performance and quality of opposed counsel were and are high in this action." The court also found that the result of lead counsel’s efforts were "excellent settlements of uncommon amount engineered by highly skilled counsel with reasonable cost to the class."

In In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1426 (E.D. Pa.), BR&B was co-lead counsel for a class of direct purchasers of automotive refinishing paint and achieved settlements with five defendants in excess of $100 million. After reaching a settlement with the last two defendants in the litigation, the court stated, “I want to commend counsel on both sides of this litigation. I think that the representation on both sides of this litigation is as good as I’ve ever seen in my entire professional career. Counsel worked together in this case. They frankly made the job of this Court very easy and I commend all of you for what you’ve done in this litigation.”

In In Re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, No. 98-8258-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS, (S.D. Fla.) where BR&B was co-lead counsel for the shareholder class, the court wrote: “Barrack, Rodos & Bacine is recognized nationally to be a leading and skillful practitioner in the field of complex class actions.”

In Payne v. Micro Warehouse, Inc., No. 3:96CV1920(DJS) (D. Conn.) where Barrack, Rodos & Bacine was co-lead counsel for the shareholder class, the court noted “the exceptional results achieved by plaintiffs’ counsel,” who “were required to develop and litigate this complex case solely through their own efforts,” and concluded that “the benefit conveyed to the class plaintiffs amply supports the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ counsels’ work was exceptional.”