Results

“I can only say that this is by far the best tried case that I have had in my time on the bench.  I don’t think either side could have tried the case better than these counsel have.  The jury has spoken and that’s the end of the trial.  It was a pleasure having you in the courtroom.”
Judge’s comments on Vivendi, S.A. Securities Litigation
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010)
Accolades
Outstanding Recoveries

Serving as lead counsel, Milberg recovered more than $4 billion for certain policyholders in this landmark case challenging Prudential's insurance sales practices.

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.
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
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.
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.
Here, the United States Supreme Court announced a new uniform standard for evaluating the sufficiency 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 true,” as well as “tak[ing] into account plausible opposing inferences.”  On remand, the Seventh Circuit, applying this new uniform standard, unanimously sustained the complaint as sufficiently pled.