$4 Billion Settlement – In re Prudential Insurance Co. Sales Practice Litigation, No. 95-4704 (D.N.J.)
Serving as lead counsel, Milberg recovered more than $4 billion for certain policyholders in this landmark case challenging Prudential’s insurance sales practices.
$3.2 Billion Settlement – In re Tyco International Ltd., Securities Litigation, MDL 1335 (D.N.H.)
Milberg served as co-lead counsel in this litigation, which involved federal securities claims against Tyco and its former CEO, CFO, general counsel, and certain former directors arising out of alleged insider trading and the overstatement of billions of dollars in income. In 2007, the court approved a $3.2 billion settlement.
$1.14 Billion Settlement – In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 01-1855 (S.D.N.Y.)
Milberg served as lead counsel for the class and the court-appointed lead plaintiff, the Trustees of the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Pension Plan Trust Fund, in this federal securities class action. In January 2007, the court approved a settlement valued at more than $1.14 billion.
Precedent Setting Decisions
In re Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 11-05379 (M.D. Cal. 2017)
Milberg LLP is co-lead counsel in a class action against ConAgra Foods, Inc., the maker of Wesson Oils, concerning the company’s use of the phrase “100% Natural” to market food products made with crops grown from seeds that have been genetically engineered using sophisticated laboratory techniques. The District Court certified eleven separate statewide classes of Wesson purchasers. ConAgra appealed the class certification order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision in a decision considered extremely favorable to consumer class actions. Conagra petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
Platinum Partners v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., No. 1-11-2903 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)
Milberg represented an investment management group in a case against the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”) and Options Clearing Corp. (“OCC”). The plaintiff investment management group alleged that it was injured when the CBOE and OCC privately disclosed strike price information to certain insiders prior to the information being made public. In the interim between the private disclosure and the public announcements, the plaintiff purchased tens of thousands of affected options. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the CBOE and OCC, as self-regulatory organizations, were immune from suit. However, the Appellate Court reversed, holding that a private disclosure to insiders served no regulatory purpose and should not be protected from suit. The Illinois Supreme Court declined the defendants’ petition for leave to appeal.
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010)
Milberg won a significant victory before the United States Supreme Court, which issued a decision addressing when an investor is placed on “inquiry notice” of a securities fraud violation sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b). The Court held that the plaintiff must be on actual or constructive notice of facts concerning the defendants’ scienter in order to trigger the statute of limitations. This important holding potentially enables plaintiffs to bring claims based on misstatements made beyond the two-year limitations period.