On November 17, 2009, after a successful six week jury trial, the Honorable Alfred J. Jennings, Jr. of the Connecticut Superior Court (Stamford/Norwalk Division), complimenting the Firm and all of the lawyers that tried the case, stating: “I would also like to commend the lawyers in this case. Extremely thorough professional presentations were made under very trying circumstances . . . . [t]hey were all done to the highest quality of the legal profession, and the advocacy was always aggressive but within the bounds of good professional propriety . . . thank you for the excellent job that you did.” Artie’s Auto Body, Inc., et. al. v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Co., No. X08-CV-03-0196141S (CLD), Trial Transcript, November 17, 2009 at 15.

In September 2008, Judge Joel A. Pisano of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved a settlement the Firm (as sole lead counsel) negotiated with Royal Dutch/Shell. The court stated: “[L]et me say one more thing. I compliment everybody in the way they’ve presented themselves here and I want you to know that I mean that sincerely. . . . I’m happy to say that the lawyers in this case have, again, conducted themselves in the highest professional manner. And I’m also pleased to say that this does not surprise me, having had the opportunity to preside over a lot of these class action litigations . . . . Particularly the attorneys in this case . . . . Thank you all.” In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litigation, No. 04-374 (JAP), Transcript of Hearing, Sept. 26, 2008 at 60-61.

On August 25, 2008, Judge Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York gave final approval to a $20.1 million settlement with Lumenis Ltd. and certain individual defendants. In the course of that ruling, the court stated that “the quality of the representation to achieve what they have achieved speaks for itself. The quality was extremely high.” In re Lumenis Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-1989, Transcript of Hearing, Aug. 25, 2008 at 6.

After oral argument on the motion to dismiss in a consumer case, Judge Stephen Bucaria stated: “But I did want to thank . . . counsel for excellent, excellent oral argument. Certainly helped the Court significantly. And I want to thank you . . . for what is a sterling indication of what the bar can produce when you have qualified people before it.” Carlson, et al. v. Long Island Jewish Hospital, et al., Index No. 020098/05 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau County).

In a consumer action brought in federal court under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Magistrate Judge (now United States District Court Judge) Marcia Morales Howard wrote that the settlement achieved by the Firm “accomplish[ed] an exceptional result because of the nationwide benefit to all women diagnosed with [Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome] and the benefit to the medical community . . . . The result is also exceptional given the uphill battle Plaintiffs would have encountered in certifying a class and proving Defendants’ knowledge that their product did not work for women with PCOS.” Wagner v. Inverness Medical Innovations Inc., No. 3:03-cv-404-J-20MMH (M.D. Fl.).

Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in approving a settlement where the Firm served as sole lead counsel, found that: “Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are skilled in federal securities and class action litigation . . . . Counsel have been diligent and well prepared. . . . Plaintiffs’ counsel has performed an important public service in this action and have done so efficiently and with integrity . . . . You have the thanks of this court.” In re Take Two Interactive Software, Inc. Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9919 (S.D.N.Y.).

Vice Chancellor (now Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice) Myron T. Steele, in approving a shareholder class action settlement, stated “I’m impressed with the innovative nature . . . of the benefit that’s been provided . . . . It’s my turn to make a compliment in open court: that the plaintiff is represented by highly competent counsel, a counsel that demonstrates consistently to me an incredible work ethic in achieving the benefits that were achieved here.” In re Illinois Central Corporation Shareholders Litigation, C.A. 16184 (Del. Ch.).

Judge Wayne Andersen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in approving a proxy fraud settlement, commented to partner Stanley Bernstein: “Mr. Bernstein, it has actually been a pleasure getting to know and work with you on this . . . . [Y]ou make a really good presentation.” Hager v. Schawk, Inc., No. 95 C6974 (N.D. Ill.).

In approving a settlement on behalf of the purchasers of Tower Air, Inc. securities and describing the Firm’s services for the class as sole lead counsel, Judge Reena Raggi of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (now a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) commented: “[t]he quality of the legal work throughout has been high and conscientious . . . .” In re Tower Air, Inc. Securities Litigation, 94 Civ. 1347 (E.D.N.Y.).

Judge Robert Cindrich of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in approving a securities fraud settlement, endorsed the findings of Magistrate Judge Kenneth Benson that: “Counsel . . . have been professional and realistic in this matter . . . . The court has been impressed with the competence and candor of counsel . . . .” DeCicco v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., C.A. 95-1937 (W.D. Pa.)..