You are on page 1of 27

Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 60 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 605

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.


COUNSELLORS AT LAW
_____________

CHARLES C. CARELLA JAMES T. BYERS FRANCIS C. HAND RAYMOND J. LILLIE


5 BECKER FARM ROAD
BRENDAN T. BYRNE DONALD F. MICELI AVRAM S. EULE WILLIAM SQUIRE
ROSELAND, N.J. 07068 -1739 CHRISTOPHER H. WESTRICK*
PETER G. STEWART A. RICHARD ROSS STEPHEN R. DANEK
JAN ALAN BRODY CARL R. WOODWARD, III
PHONE (973) 994-1700 ______ DONALD A. ECKLUND
JOHN M. AGNELLO MELISSA E. FLAX FAX (973) 994-1744 OF COUNSEL MEGAN A. NATALE
CHARLES M. CARELLA DAVID G. GILFILLAN www.carellabyrne.com ZACHARY S. BOWER+
*CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
JAMES E. CECCHI G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD NEW JERSEY AS A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL CROSS
BRIAN H. FENLON CHRISTOPHER J. BUGGY
JAMES D. CECCHI (1933-1995) LINDSEY H. TAYLOR JOHN V. KELLY III
JOHN G. GILFILLAN III (1936-2008) CAROLINE F. BARTLETT MICHAEL A. INNES
ELLIOT M. OLSTEIN (1939-2014) +MEMBER FL BAR ONLY
May 5, 2017

VIA ECF

The Honorable Brian R. Martinotti


United States District Judge
Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
402 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

Re: In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG)


Barnett v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-1580(BRM)(LHG)
Boss v. CVS Health Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01823(BRM)(LHG)
Christensen v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02678(BRM)(LHG)

Dear Judge Martinotti:

This firm, along with our co-counsel, represents Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing
Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG).1 Please accept this letter brief in further support of
Plaintiffs request that this Court appoint Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne (HB-CB) as
interim co-lead counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) and in response to the competing applications for
appointment.
The competing applications confirm that HB-CB are the most qualified firms to serve as
interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs and the proposed class.
First, the HB-CB team has driven the development of this case and initiated this
litigation. We have invested more than one year and significant funds developing the proposed
classs claims. Our complaint was the first filed complaint, and served as the template for all
subsequent complaints. The Weitz & Luxenberg and Berman DeValerio (WL-BD) groups
claim that its complaint was an original work is a gross exaggeration. Even a casual reader of our
initial complaint (or amended complaint) can see their assertion is untrue. By way of example
only, the WL-BD copycat complaints virtually duplicate the factual and legal allegations in the
original HB-CB complaint. As courts have acknowledged, attorneys should not rely solely upon
the inquiry by a member of another law firm.2 Therefore, when making lead counsel
determinations courts typically consider . . . whether one complaint is simply a copycat action

1
All co-counsel in In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG) support the appointment of
Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne as interim co-lead counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). See Dkt. Nos. 52, 53, and 54,
respectively.
2
Greenfield v. United States Healthcare, 146 F.R.D. 118, 124, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1011, *19 (E.D. Pa. 1993)
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 60 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 606

May 5, 2017
Page 2

of another.3 Indeed, the Third Circuit discourages exactly these types of copycat complaints
that do not benefit the class, and are merely entrepreneurial efforts taken by firms attempting to
secure lead counsel status.4 As set forth more fully in our opening papers, HB-CB thoroughly
researched the factual basis for this action, built relationships with the majority of named
Plaintiffs, drafted legal claims based on relevant past litigation experience, and filed the first
complaint. If the WL-BD group did indeed independently develop the claims in this case as they
allege, it is unclear why they chose to copy the majority of HB-CBs complaint instead of
writing their own.
Second, while the other applicants for interim lead counsel have respected practices and
are certainly esteemed attorneys, the HB-CB team unquestionably has the greatest expertise in
the specific area of drug pricing class actions, especially with respect to RICO claims. This team
is the only one to have successfully tried similar claims against comparable defendants. In re
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.)).
Indeed, the HB-CB team took up the insulin investigation because they realized that the industry
dynamics at play in the Average Wholesale Pricing litigation of the 2000s5cases which Hagens
Berman ledare driving the rising cost of insulin. Our team alone has the expertise necessary to
successfully and efficiently advance these claims in the best interests of the class.
In stark contrast to the HB-CB team, the expertise of the WL-BD team lies in other fields.
Recognized success in one area does not demonstrate qualification in another. Put simply, the
WL-BD group does not have the same experience or expertise in the specialized field of drug
pricing litigation as the HB-CB team, and Rule 23(g) does not envision appointing counsel
experienced in a disparate field instead of counsel with expertise in the arena at the heart of the
action to the detriment of the putative class. As leaders in drug pricing class actions, and as
pioneers of these related cases, the HB-CB team is best suited to serve as interim co-lead
counsel.
Third, efficiency is an important concern in appointing class counsel. In an attempt to
differentiate their complaint from In re Insulin, the WL-BD copycat complaints added the major
PBMs as defendants. As WL-BDs Rule 23(g) application demonstrates, this maneuver was a
transparent play to obtain appointment as lead counsel. The WL-BD application contends that
their addition of the PBMs as defendants was valuable. However, our past experience with
similar class actions has taught that trying claims against PBM defendants and drug
manufacturer defendants in one action is inefficient and overcomplicates the matter. This ploy,
of seeking to be lead counsel by challenging either the breadth of the claims asserted by the first-
filing counsel or expanding the number of defendants, is often seen in class litigation and is
routinely rejected. For example in the In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation,
MDL No. 2543 (S.D.N.Y.), the same ploy was launched and rejected with Judge Berman

3
In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 11-cv-03176, 2011 WL 4345099, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011).
4
In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 404 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 2005); see also In re Oclaro, 2011 WL at *2; In re
Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00-cv-00648, 2001 WL 210697, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2001); Sexton ex rel.
Jones Soda Co. v. Van Stolk, No. 07-cv-01782, 2008 WL 1733242, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2008).
5
See In Re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.); New England
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 05-cv-11148-
PBS (D. Mass.).

C ARELLA , B YRNE , C ECCHI , O LSTEIN , B RODY & A GNELLO


A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 60 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 607

May 5, 2017
Page 3

allowing the lead lawyers, including Hagens Berman, to frame the claims and defendants in the
case. The same should be done here.
We believe that separation of claims against the PBM defendants and drug manufacturer
defendants will best serve the interests of the class. As a result, we respectfully request that the
Court bifurcate the claims against the two separate classes of defendants, and name Steve W.
Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and James E. Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. as co-interim lead counsel for the drug manufacturer claims and
Keller Rohrback as co-interim lead counsel for the PBM claims. These three firms will then
work together to coordinate the two separate tracks, maximize opportunities for efficiency, but
not consolidate them. We are eager to work cooperatively for the benefit of both the drug
manufacturer class and the PBM class, but we submit that the WL-BD groups claim that the two
tracks must be tried together is nothing more than a play to obtain lead-counsel. We believe our
proposed division will best serve the interests of the class and allow the coordinated and efficient
prosecution of all cases before the Court.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If the Court has any questions, we are
available at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,


OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

/s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

cc: Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. (via ECF)


All Counsel of Record (via email)

C ARELLA , B YRNE , C ECCHI , O LSTEIN , B RODY & A GNELLO


A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 525

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.


COUNSELLORS AT LAW
_____________

CHARLES C. CARELLA JAMES T. BYERS FRANCIS C. HAND RAYMOND J. LILLIE


5 BECKER FARM ROAD
BRENDAN T. BYRNE DONALD F. MICELI AVRAM S. EULE WILLIAM SQUIRE
ROSELAND, N.J. 07068 -1739 CHRISTOPHER H. WESTRICK*
PETER G. STEWART A. RICHARD ROSS STEPHEN R. DANEK
JAN ALAN BRODY CARL R. WOODWARD, III
PHONE (973) 994-1700 ______ DONALD A. ECKLUND
JOHN M. AGNELLO MELISSA E. FLAX FAX (973) 994-1744 OF COUNSEL MEGAN A. NATALE
CHARLES M. CARELLA DAVID G. GILFILLAN www.carellabyrne.com ZACHARY S. BOWER+
*CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
JAMES E. CECCHI G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD NEW JERSEY AS A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL CROSS
BRIAN H. FENLON CHRISTOPHER J. BUGGY
JAMES D. CECCHI (1933-1995) LINDSEY H. TAYLOR JOHN V. KELLY III
JOHN G. GILFILLAN III (1936-2008) CAROLINE F. BARTLETT MICHAEL A. INNES
ELLIOT M. OLSTEIN (1939-2014) +MEMBER FL BAR ONLY

April 28, 2017

VIA ECF

The Honorable Brian R. Martinotti


United States District Judge
Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
402 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

Re: In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG)


Barnett, et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-1580(BRM)(LHG)
Boss, et al. v. CVS Health Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01823(BRM)(LHG)
Christensen, et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02678(BRM)(LHG)

Dear Judge Martinotti:

This firm, along with our co-counsel, represents Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing
Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG). Pursuant to the parties joint report, which was
submitted in accordance with Judge Goodmans text order of April 10, 2017 (Dckt. No. 45),
enclosed please find a joint application supporting appointment of Steve W. Berman and myself
as interim co-lead counsel for the putative consumer class pursuant to Rule 23(g). Since this is a
joint application on behalf of two applicants, it is formatted as a double-spaced brief rather than a
single-spaced letter and is 19 pages.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If the Court has any questions, we are
available at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,


OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

/s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

cc: Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. (via ECF)


All Counsel of Record (via email)
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 526

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

In re INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION


Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG)

This filing applies to: Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti

Barnett, et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. Hon. Magistrate Judge Lois M. Goodman
3:17-cv-01580 (D.N.J.); Boss, et al. v. CVS
Health Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01823
(D.N.J.); Christensen, et al. v. Novo Nordisk
Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02678 (D.N.J.)

JOINT APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF


STEVE W. BERMAN OF HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP AND
JAMES E. CECCHI OF CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C. AS INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE PUTATIVE
CONSUMER CLASS PURSUANT TO RULE 23(G)

James E. Cecchi Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)


Donald A. Ecklund HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Michael A. Innes 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, Seattle, WA 98101
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. (206) 623-7292
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068 Thomas M. Sobol (admitted pro hac vice)
(973) 994-1700 Hannah W. Brennan (admitted pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
(617) 482-3700

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing


Litigation
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 527

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... i

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................2

III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3

1. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrnes relevant experience is unparalleled. ........................ 4

a. Hagens Berman ....................................................................................................... 5

(1) PHARMACEUTICAL CLASS ACTIONS ............................................................ 6

(2) OTHER NOTABLE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ............................................. 7

(3) CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW


JERSEY .................................................................................................................. 8

b. Carella Byrne .......................................................................................................... 9

2. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne undertook substantial investigation and


analysis of the underlying claims prior to filing this action...............................................12

3. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have substantial knowledge of the applicable law. .. 13

4. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will devote all resources necessary to this action..... 14

5. Other factors demonstrate counsels fitness to serve as interim co-lead counsel. ............ 16

a. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will ensure that any recovery reaches the class
................................................................................................................... 16

b. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have built strong plaintiff relationships........ 16

IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................18

-i-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 528

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)

Galicki v. New Jersey,


No. 14-cv-00169, 2014 WL 4979499 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014) .....................................................4

Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc.,


207 F. Supp. 3d 417 (D.N.J. 2016) ............................................................................................4

Santos v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC,


No. 2:15-cv-00864, 2017 WL 215969 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2017)...................................................4

Sheinberg v. Sorensen,
606 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................4

In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litig.,


MDL No. 2455 (N.D. Ill.) (Mem. Order dated October 11, 2013) ............................................9

Waudby v. Verizon Wireless Services, Inc.,


248 F.R.D. 173 (D.N.J. 2008) ................................................................................................3, 4

Statutes

Employee Retirement Income Security Act ..................................................................................11

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ...................................................2, 11, 12, 13

Other Authorities

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) .............................................................................................................. passim

- ii -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 529

I. INTRODUCTION

This Court has extraordinary power and discretion under Rule 23(g). In cases like this

one, involving price gauging and collusion in the market for life-saving drugs, the Courts

decision will have far reaching consequences, for better or worse. This matter holds significant

public policy implications beyond the narrow interests of the respective lawyers. Each of the law

firms seeking to lead this case is capable and distinguished in many ways. But not every law

firm can lead this case. And not every law firmirrespective of their talents in any particular

practice areashould lead a national class action in the complex field of pharmaceutical pricing.

Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne submit that in this specialized area they are uniquely qualified

to represent the class of injured insulin consumers. In addition to their past experience, these

firms alone pioneered this case, developing the theories and claims that underlie each of the

complaints before the Court. These twin factorsexperience and originationtip the scales

decidedly and overwhelmingly in their favor.

Hagens Berman served as lead counsel in one of the most important drug pricing class

actions tried in the past decade. That case, In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale

Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.) (Average Wholesale Pricing), bears many

similarities to the present suit. The baseline of knowledge and experience Hagens Berman

gained in litigating Average Wholesale Pricing (as well as the numerous Average Wholesale

Pricing cases that followed) cannot be underestimated in terms of its value to the present

putative class of insulin consumers. None of the other firms before the Court has a comparable

depth of expertise in the area of pharmaceutical pricing. It is also beyond question that Hagens

Berman and Carella Byrne originated this case after conducting a proprietary investigation.

These firms made significant investments to acquire the data and expert analysis necessary to

-1-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 530

piece together the gross collusion and price gauging at the heart of this conspiracydata and

research that the other applicants have simply copied in their own complaints. And it is not

surprising that Hagens Berman was the first to investigate this racket and take action: Hagens

Bermans experience litigating Average Wholesale Pricing gave the firm, together with Carella

Byrne, the insight they needed to investigate this case, to invest the resources necessary, and to

file first, paving the way for each complaint that followed. Put simply, Hagens Berman and

Carella Byrne view this case as a proprietary one and Rule 23(g) supports their appointment as

lead as the lawsuits originators. Indeed, it would be a disincentive for lawyers to investigate and

develop important cases if others could take over with follow-complaints that add nothing of

great moment to the work of the first filer.

Finally, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have spent months cultivating close

relationships with the vast majority of named plaintiffs as well as supportive advocacy groups.

As a result, we are in the best position to serve their interests. When viewed as a whole, Hagens

Berman and Carella Byrne respectfully submit that their past work in the pharmaceutical filed,

their original investigation in bringing this important lawsuit, and their commitment to seeing it

through to a successful conclusion demonstrate that their application should be granted under

Rule 23(g).

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

In re Insulin Pricing Litigation and the related cases allege that Sanofi, Novo Nordisk,

and Eli Lilly have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18

U.S.C. 1961-1968, and various state consumer protection laws. The defendants have done so

by unlawfully manipulating the benchmark prices of their rapid- and long-acting analog insulin

drugs for the benefit of the three largest Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)CVS Health,

-2-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 531

Express Scripts, and Optum Rx. More specifically, the defendant insulin makers publicly publish

one pricethe benchmark pricewhile secretly offering a much lower pricethe real priceto

the largest PBMs in exchange for favorable formulary status. This practice has enabled the drug

makers to secure the big PBMs business without significantly reducing their real prices. But the

scheme has a victim: patients who must pay for significant portions of their drugs out-of-pocket

based on benchmark prices. Defendants benchmark-price arms race has forced people living

with diabetes into an unconscionable Catch-22: the very medicine keeping them alive renders

their lives unaffordable.

After an extensive investigation, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne filed the proposed

putative class action on behalf of such injured patient-consumers in the District of New Jersey on

February 2, 2017. Shortly thereafter, on March 8 and March 17, 2017, two copycat actions were

filed virtually duplicating the factual and legal allegations in the original Hagens Berman and

Carella Byrne complaint. The only meaningful difference is these follow-on complaints named

the PBMs as defendants.

III. ARGUMENT

Rule 23(g)(3) provides that [t]he court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of

the putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action. 1

Designation of interim counsel is appropriate if necessary to protect the interests of the putative

class.2 When selecting interim class counsel, courts apply the factors set forth in Rule 23(g),3

examining:

1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3).
2
Courts selecting interim class counsel apply the same standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) for the
appointment of counsel for a certified class. See Waudby v. Verizon Wireless Services, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 173, 175-76
(D.N.J. 2008).

-3-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 532

(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating


potential claims in the action;

(ii) counsels experience in handling class actions, other complex


litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;

(iii) counsels knowledge of the applicable law; and

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the


class.4

Additionally, the courts may consider any other matter pertinent to counsels ability to fairly

and adequately represent the interests of the class.5 These factors strongly support appointment

of Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne.

1. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrnes relevant experience is unparalleled.

Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have exceptional experience handling complex civil

litigation and consumer class-action lawsuits.6 In the specialized field of drug pricing litigation,

the expertise of proposed interim co-lead counsel is unparalleled. These firms regularly bring

class action lawsuits to trial,7 including the single most germane pharmaceutical class actionIn

re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.).

3
See Waudby, 248 F.R.D. at 175-76.
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A); see Sheinberg v. Sorensen, 606 F.3d 130, 133 n.1 (3d Cir. 2010); Rivet v. Office
Depot, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 3d 417, 432 (D.N.J. 2016); Galicki v. New Jersey, No. 14-cv-00169, 2014 WL 4979499, at
*1 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014); Waudby, 248 F.R.D. at 175-76.
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B); see Sheinberg, 606 F.3d at 133 n.1 (quoting this language); Santos v. Carrington
Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00864, 2017 WL 215969, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2017).
6
Hagens Berman and Mr. Bermans rsums are available at:
http://www.hbsscreative.com/firm_resume/Hagens_Berman_Firm_Resume.pdf. Carella Byrne and Mr. Cecchis
rsums are available upon the Courts request.
7
Class action cases that Hagens Berman has tried include: In re Neurontin Marketing & Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1629 (D. Mass.); Williams v. The Boeing Co., No. 98-cv-761 P (W.D. Wash.); In re Burlington
Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. Employee Settlement Agreements Litigation (W.D. Wash.); In re Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, MDL No. 1456, No. 01-12257 (D. Mass.), and Kucera v. The
State of Washington Department of Transportation & Washington State Ferries, No. 99-2-01161-1 (Wash. King
Cty. Super. Ct.).

-4-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 533

Members of these two firms, including the attorneys described below, have worked

collaboratively in the past and welcome the opportunity to do so here.

a. Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is uniquely qualified to serve as interim co-lead counsel. The firm not

only litigates complex class actions throughout the country and in this District, but also has been

appointed lead or co-lead counsel in some of the largest drug pricing, consumer fraud, product

liability, securities, and antitrust class actions in history. Indeed, Hagens Berman has led the

fight for more affordable prescription drugs and a more responsible pharmaceutical industry for

over a decade. Hagens Berman has represented consumers, for-profit and not-for-profit health

insurers, consumer organizations, state attorneys general, and drug wholesalers and retailers.

Hagens Berman is also counsel to the Prescription Access Litigation project, a leading drug

pricing organization that fights for access to more affordable prescription drugs through

enforcement of existing federal and state laws. In recent years, Hagens Bermans aggressive

prosecution of pharmaceutical industry misconduct has yielded more than a billion dollars in

gross settlement funds.

Hagens Berman has been consistently recognized for this work. The National Law

Journal named Hagens Berman to its Plaintiffs Hot List in 2006, 2007, and each of the years

2009 to 2014. In 2014, the National Law Journal named also Hagens Berman to its inaugural list

of Americans Elite Trial Lawyersa compilation of the nations leading firms bringing about

significant change and major plaintiffs settlements through complex litigation. The firm is

particularly skilled at managing multi-state and nationwide class actions through a coordinated

approach that implements an efficient and aggressive prosecutorial strategy. Below are a few

examples of the firms track recordboth in pharmaceutical field and beyond.

-5-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 534

(1) Pharmaceutical Class Actions

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price


Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.) (Average Wholesale Price).
Hagens Berman served as liaison counsel and co-lead counsel in
this action against several drug companies for their artificial
inflation of benchmark drug prices. In this suit, Hagens Berman
revealed systemic abuse of benchmark pricesalso known as
average wholesale pricesby actors within the prescription drug
industry. After a six-week trial, Hagens Berman obtained over
$250 million in settlements for plaintiffs. Average Wholesale
Price shares many of the same facts, issues, and legal theories as
the present matter. Therefore, Hagens Bermans experience trying
Average Wholesale Price will be crucial to the present action;
lessons learned in that case will guide litigation of this matter.
Steve W. Berman served as the lead trial lawyer in the AWP case.

Follow-on Average Wholesale Price Litigation. As a result of the


class Average Wholesale Price case, Hagens Berman represented
six states in their successful efforts to recover state Medicaid
damages.

New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First


DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corp., Civil Action No. 05-cv-
11148 (D. Mass.) (New England Carpenters). This case, like In re
Insulin, revolved around benchmark pricing and the conduct of
PBMs. Hagens Berman developed New England Carpenters and
served as lead class counsel on behalf of consumers and health
plans in their claims against First DataBank and McKesson for
misreporting the benchmark prices of prescription drugs. Plaintiffs
claimed that First DataBank and McKesson secretly agreed to raise
the spread between benchmark price and wholesale price for more
than 400 drugs. This scheme resulted in higher profits for retail
pharmacies and PBMs at the expense of consumers and payers.
Ultimately, plaintiffs obtained a landmark settlement: Because of
this lawsuit, First DataBank agreed to roll back reported
benchmark prices for the drugs included in the lawsuit as well as
hundreds of other drugs. This outcome continues to save
consumers hundreds of millions of dollars to this day. The lawsuit
also resulted in a $350 million nationwide settlement with
McKesson Corporation. This suit was brought under RICO, and
many of the theories developed in it will be relevant to the present
matter.

National Association of Chain Drug Stores v. New England


Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, 582 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2009). On
September 3, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the settlement

-6-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 535

between plaintiff health benefit plans and consumers and


defendants First DataBank and Medi-Span, two leading drug
pricing publishers. This win cemented the rollback in the
benchmark prices achieved in New England Carpenters. Steve
Berman argued this case to the First Circuit. Hagens Berman also
received $75 million for a governmental entities class and
substantial recoveries for seven states based.

In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., MDL No. 2419


(D. Mass.); In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc.
(Chapter 11), Bankr. 12-br-19882-HJB (D. Mass.). Hagens
Berman served as court-appointed lead counsel in this action
alleging New England Compounding Pharmacy (NECC) produced
contaminated injections. The United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Massachusetts confirmed a Chapter 11 plan for
NECC that included tort settlements totaling more than $250
million in contributions from NECCs owners, affiliate companies,
vendors, and insurers, as well as several independent clinics,
hospitals, doctors offices, and their respective insurers. Hagens
Berman continues to serve as lead counsel where litigation against
other clinics, hospitals, and doctors is ongoing.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., Civil


Action No. 04-cv-10739 (D. Mass.). In March 2009, following a
four-and-a-half-week trial and two days of deliberations, Hagens
Berman won a jury trial that returned a $142 million RICO verdict
against Pfizer, Warner Lambert, and Parke Davis for Pfizers
fraudulent and unlawful promotion of the drug Neurontin. The
jury also found, in an advisory capacity, that defendants violated
the California Unfair Competition Law. Hagens Berman played a
pivotal role in preparing the case for trial and served as co-lead
trial counsel for Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plans and
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

(2) Other Notable Class Action Lawsuits

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing,


Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2151
(S.D. Cal.) (Toyota). Steve Berman served as co-lead counsel for
the economic loss classes in this MDL, alleging that a defect
caused vehicles to undergo sudden, unintended acceleration. The
resulting settlement was valued at over $1.6 billion and included:
$500 million in cash payments to class members, many of whom
received checks for thousands of dollars; installation of a safety-
enhancing brake override system on numerous vehicle models; and
a program that substantially extended warranties. Hagens Berman
has also been appointed lead and co-lead in other high profile

-7-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 536

vehicle cases, including In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel


Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.) (member of plaintiffs Steering
Committee) and In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch
Litigation, MDL No. 2543 (S.D.N.Y.) (GM Ignition Switch).
Steve Berman is the only lawyer in the country appointed to co-
lead the economic loss cases in the two largest automobile defect
lawsuits in the United StatesToyota and GM. In each case, the
initial appointment was made sua sponte, highlighting Hagens
Bermans reputation and proven abilities.

In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-md-2293


(S.D.N.Y.). Hagens Berman pioneered this litigation as lead
counsel against Apple and the largest brick-and-mortar publishers
for antitrust violations. The firm worked in novel partnership with
the Department of Justice and 33 State Attorneys General,
representing purchasers of e-books in 19 states and four U.S.
territories. As a result of the settlement, the class may receive up
to $560 million to resolve price-fixing allegations and single
damages of $270 million.

Attorney General Tobacco Litigation. In this historic litigation


against the tobacco industry, the Hagens Berman represented
thirteen states and pursued innovative claims that helped achieve a
global settlement of all cases for the largest recovery in litigation
history$260 billion. Only two law firms, including Hagens
Berman, went to trial in these Attorney General actions.

(3) Current Pharmaceutical Litigation in the District of New


Jersey

In re Effexor Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-cv-5479


(D.N.J.). Hagens Berman serves as co-lead counsel in this action
against drug manufacturer Wyeth and generic manufacturer Teva.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants delayed market entry of generic
versions of Effexor XR.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2332 (D.N.J.). Hagens


Berman serves as co-lead counsel in this action alleging Pfizer
delayed the market entry of generic versions of the cholesterol
drug Lipitor.

Hagens Berman has committed its top attorney, Steve W. Berman, to this proposed class

action. Mr. Berman is the founder and managing partner of Hagens Berman and has served as

lead or co-lead counsel in antitrust, securities, consumer, product liability, and employment class

-8-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 537

actions and complex litigation throughout the country. Appointing Mr. Berman in a recent

MDL, Judge Shadur of the Northern District of Illinois remarked:

But it must be said that the track record of Hagens Berman and its
lead partner Steve Berman is even more impressive, having racked
up such accomplishments as a $1.6 billion settlement in the Toyota
Unintended Acceleration Litigation and a substantial number of
really outstanding big-ticket results. It may be worth mentioning
that to this Courts recollection, it has had no first-hand judicial
experience with either of the two finalist firms[,] . . . [b]ut that is
not true of its colleagues in this District of more recent vintage, an
email inquiry to whom brought in return some high praise of
attorney Bermans skills.8

Perhaps most notable is Mr. Bermans role as a Special Assistant Attorney General for

the states of Illinois, Washington, Arizona, Indiana, New York, Alaska, Idaho, Ohio, Oregon,

Nevada, Montana, Vermont, and Rhode Island in the landmark tobacco litigation. That case

resulted in the largest settlement in history, a settlement that occurred while Mr. Berman was

trying Washington v. Philip Morris.

b. Carella Byrne

Carella Byrnes depth of experience in a broad range of practice areas is also well-

recognized. Carella Byrne has an experienced team of attorneys and support staff who are

dedicated to representing individuals, businesses, and public and private pension funds that have

suffered from corporate fraud and wrongdoing. Carella Byrne and its attorneys also have a

proven leadership record in multi-district and class action lawsuits, serving as lead, co-lead,

committee member, and liaison counsel in securities actions, mass-torts, consumer class actions

and antitrust cases. For example:

In re Merck & Co., Inc. Sec., Derivative and ERISA Litigation,


MDL No. 1658 (D.N.J.). James Cecchi was appointed liaison
8
In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litig., MDL No. 2455 (N.D. Ill.) (Mem. Order dated October 11,
2013) (Dkt. No. 56) (footnotes omitted).

-9-
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 538

counsel in this suit that recovered $1.06 billion for investors, the
second largest securities recovery in the Districts history.

In re Merck & Co., Vytorin ERISA Litigation, MDL No. (D.N.J.).


James Cecchi served as co-lead counsel in a nationwide case
alleging that Mercks sale and marketing of the prescription drugs
Zetia and Vytorin was fraudulent. The case was settled for $42.5
million.

In re Merck & Co. Enhance Securities Class Action Litigation,


Civil Action No. 08-cv-02177 (D.N.J.). After initiating this
lawsuit, James Cecchi served as liaison counsel in two securities
class actions brought against Merck and Schering-Plough
regarding the drugs Vytorin and Zetia and the results of the
ENHANCE study. In 2013, both cases settled. The Merck
defendants paid $215 million to resolve the action, and the
Schering-Plough defendants paid $473 million.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-cv-05479


(D.N.J.). James Cecchi serves as Chair of the Indirect Steering
Committee in this action against drug manufacturer Wyeth and
generic manufacturer Teva. Plaintiffs allege that defendants
delayed market entry of generic versions of Effexor XR.

Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Civil Action No. 11-cv-07178


(D.N.J.). James Cecchi serves as co-liaison counsel in this case, on
behalf of health care providers alleging that Sanofi used its market
power to impose bundling-pricing contracts. Specifically, the
plaintiffs claim the drug company held a dominant position in five
pediatric vaccine markets, including a complete monopoly with the
quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine Menactra from 2005 to
February 2010. James Cecchi was also the lead settlement
negotiator in this complex antitrust case and successfully obtained
a $60-million-dollar settlement awaiting final approval in October.

In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and


Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Ca.). The
court appointed James Cecchi to the plaintiffs steering committee
in this multi-district litigation that recovered settlements valued at
more than $15 billion, a record in consumer class actions.

Pro v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, Civil Action No. 06-


cv-03830 (D.N.J.). The Court appointed James Cecchi as co-lead
class counsel in this action that made more than $143 million
available to eligible class members.

- 10 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 539

In re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2599


(S.D. Fla.). The court appointed James Cecchi to a three-member
plaintiffs steering committee in this case arising from the largest
vehicle recall in United States history.

In re Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2687


(D.N.J.). The Court appointed James Cecchi as sole lead counsel
for plaintiffs in a multi-billion-dollar antitrust action alleging a
nationwide conspiracy in the liquid aluminum sulfate market.

Carella Byrnes experience prosecuting class cases in the District of New Jersey over the

past decade is unrivaled. For example in In re Merck & Co. Enhance Securities Class Action

Litigation and In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation, Civil Action

No. 07-cv-00397 (D.N.J.), the firm served as court-appointed liaison counsel and recovered $688

million for investors. Indeed, Carella Byrne has been appointed lead counsel in many of the

largest class cases litigated in the District of New Jersey over the past ten years. These include

dozens of consumer class actions against the pharmaceutical, automotive, and

telecommunications industries where Carella Byrne has served as lead or co-lead counsel.

Like Hagens Berman, Carella Byrne has dedicated its top class action litigator, James

Cecchi, to this matter. With over twenty-five years of experience, Mr. Cecchi has successfully

handled numerous significant cases on behalf of institutional and individual clients throughout

the United States. Furthermore, Mr. Cecchi currently helps lead numerous class actions

involving healthcare industry defendants. Some notable examples include: In re AETNA, Inc.,

Out-of-Network UCR Rates Litigation, MDL No. 2020 (D.N.J.) (appointed settlement counsel

in a case alleging ERISA and RICO claims arising from nationwide underpayment of out-of-

network benefits); In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2750

(D.N.J.) (appointed liaison counsel in complex pharmaceutical products liability litigation); In re

Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243 (same).

- 11 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 540

Additionally, over the course of his career, Mr. Cecchi has collected extensive experience

prosecuting RICO claims beginning with his service as an Assistant United States Attorney in

the State of New Jersey. Just last year, Mr. Cecchi was appointed co-lead counsel in a multi-

billion-dollar class case: In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Third-Party Payor

Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-03087 (D.N.J.). This class action alleges RICO violations

arising from drug-maker Valeants use of a secret network of captive pharmacies to fraudulently

inflate the prices of the drug companys products to the detriment of third-party payers.

2. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne undertook substantial investigation and


analysis of the underlying claims prior to filing this action.

On February 2, 2017, proposed interim co-lead counsel filed In re Insulin in the District

of New Jersey.9 This filing was the culmination of nearly a year-long factual investigation. After

a number of periodicals spotlighted the rising insulin prices last spring, our firms began to

research the issue. We soon realized that the industry dynamics at play in Average Wholesale

Pricing and New England Carpenterscases which Hagens Berman ledmight also be driving

the rising cost of insulin. To further investigate this problem, Hagens Berman purchased private

financial analyses of the pharmaceutical industry, consulted economists regarding trends in the

health insurance marketplace, and acquired proprietary drug pricing data. Alongside this

research, Hagens Berman began to consult regularly with insulin patient advocacy groups,

endocrinologists, and other public health activists regarding this issue. These patient allies

introduced the firm to many of the plaintiffs whose stories we shared in our original complaint.

Over the course of the last few months, we have developed strong relationships with these

plaintiffs, regularly speaking over the phone to answer questions and discuss the case.

9
This action was initially filed in the District of Massachusetts. It was voluntary withdrawn from that district
and re-filed in the District of New Jersey because a related investor suit had already been filed in this district.

- 12 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 541

Proposed interim co-lead counsel took equal care in drafting the legal claims set forth in

their complaint. After analyzing a broad range of legal claims, they included only the most

viable. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne believe the interests of the class are best served not

by positing every legal claim imaginable against every possible defendant, but rather by

judiciously presenting only the most cogent. In crafting their legal theory, Hagens Berman drew

on its experience litigating Average Wholesale Price and New England Carpenters. Ultimately,

the two firms decided not to name the Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) as defendants. If

appointed co-lead counsel, it is our intention to divide the case into two closely coordinated

tracksthe drug manufacturer track and the PBM track. The firm of Keller Rohrback will direct

the PBM track, while Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne direct the manufacturer track. This

division will ultimately serve the interests of the class by allowing for the coordinated and

efficient prosecution of all cases before the Court. Furthermore, this approach has been followed

before. Indeed, Hagens Berman did not name the PBMs in New England Carpenters. This

streamlined approach worked there, and we believe it will work just as well here.

3. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have substantial knowledge of the


applicable law.

Proposed interim co-lead counsel has successfully prosecuted many powerful

corporations for their violations of RICO and state consumer protection laws. Moreover, Hagens

Berman and Carella Byrne have unparalleled experience in drug pricing class actions. Both

firms have established relationships with the top experts in the pharmaceutical and drug pricing

field, including health care economists and ex-industry representatives. Proposed interim

counsel has also worked with a wide variety of damages experts to ensure that damage models

meet the theory of liability pursued. Finally, the two firms have class certification expertise that

- 13 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 542

will be critical to this case: Hagens Berman is one of the few firms in the country to have

successfully litigated multi-state class certification motions.10

4. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will devote all resources necessary to this
action.

Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are ready to commit the substantial resources

necessary to litigate a case of this magnitude. The firms suggest that two points animate this

factor: commitment of firm resources and senior partners to the case and a willingness to take the

case to trial and settle only if consumers obtain real relief. Proposed interim co-lead counsel rate

highly on both metrics.

First, both firms track records of taking on powerful corporationsincluding major

pharmaceutical, tobacco, consumer goods, and banking interestsdemonstrate that each firm

commits their full power to prosecute claims in the best interests of the plaintiffs and proposed

class. This past work also demonstrates that the firms have the ability to fund substantial costs

accruing over many years of litigation and trial. Proposed interim co-lead counsel are fully

aware that this case will likely require plaintiffs counsel to expend millions of dollars in

expenses and attorney time to oppose the very substantial law firms and corporations arrayed

against them. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne stand ready to commit these resources to this

action.

Furthermore, both firms have dedicated eminent litigators to this matter. Both Mr.

Berman and Mr. Cecchi will personally dedicate whatever time is necessary to successfully

10
Class action cases that Hagens Berman has tried include: In re Neurontin Marketing & Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1629 (D. Mass.); Williams v. The Boeing Co., No. 98-cv-761 P (W.D. Wash.); In re Burlington
Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. Employee Settlement Agreements Litigation (W.D. Wash.); In re Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, MDL No. 1456, No. 01-12257 (D. Mass.), and Kucera v. The
State of Washington Department of Transportation & Washington State Ferries, No. 99-2-01161-1 (Wash. King
Cty. Super. Ct.).

- 14 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 543

manage and prosecute the cause, and both expect to devote a substantial amount of their time to

this matter. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne also have the roster of talented attorneys and

capable staff necessary to deal with the substantial amount of discovery, motion practice, and

trial work that this action will require.

Additionally, proposed interim co-lead counsels nationwide offices will benefit the

putative class. Even though this litigation will proceed in New Jersey, the plaintiffs and

defendants are located across the United States. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrnes amended

complaint set forth claims on behalf of thirty-nine plaintiffs from nineteen different states.11

Since filing this amended complaint, twelve additional plaintiffs have retained Hagens Berman

to represent them in this suit, representing an additional seven states.12 Hagens Berman has a

national practice with offices in San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C.,

Chicago, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Colorado Springs. Carella Byrne holds office in Roseland,

New Jersey and litigates cases nationwide. Appointing counsel with a strong presence

throughout the country will ensure robust representation of plaintiffs nationwide.

Finally, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are fully prepared to and capable of

committing the type of resources necessary to take this matter to trial. The attorneys at both

firms are trial lawyers, including former Assistant United States Attorneys, Assistant State

Attorneys General, and local prosecutors. Both firms have the resolve necessary to take complex

class actions to trial, should that be in the best interests of the plaintiffs and putative class.

11
The states are: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
12
The additional states are: Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

- 15 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 544

5. Other factors demonstrate counsels fitness to serve as interim co-lead


counsel.

Rule 23(g)(1)(B) encourages the Court to consider any other matter pertinent to

counsels ability to fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class, and we suggest that

two additional factors be should be considered.

a. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will ensure any recovery reaches
the class.

First, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will ensure that real value is provided to the

class. This is especially true in the event of settlement. For example, in In re Charles Schwab

Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-01510 (N.D. Cal.), Hagens Berman negotiated a

settlement for the California class that recovered about 82% of damages with average check

amounts of approximately $1,564, and a settlement for the federal class that recovered

approximately 44% of damages with an average payout to class members of about $881. In

Toyota, vehicle registration data was used to identify and mail checks to class members. Class

members were then provided the opportunity to obtain enhanced recoveries by filing claim forms

containing certain information not reflected in the registration data.

b. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have built strong plaintiff


relationships.

Finally, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are committed to building strong relationships

to the putative class to ensure that the plaintiffs are heard and best represented. Indeed, these

firms have already begun this process. Proposed interim co-lead counsel has set up a plaintiff

portal, where potential plaintiffs can inquire with the firm about the lawsuit. So far, we have

received over 1,300 inquiries, and we strive to respond to inquiries within a week. Furthermore,

over the last few months, proposed interim co-lead counsel has cultivated close relationships

- 16 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 545

with many of the named plaintiffs. For these reason Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are in

the best position to represent the interests of this proposed class.

- 17 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 546

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court appoint Hagens

Berman and Carella Byrne as interim co-lead counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

DATED: April 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,


BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

By /s/ James E. Cecchi


James E. Cecchi NJBA #030861989
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

By /s/ Steve W. Berman


Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com

Thomas M. Sobol (admitted pro hac vice)


Hannah W. Brennan (admitted pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
tom@hbsslaw.com
hannahb@hbsslaw.com

Roberta D. Liebenberg
Adam J. Pessin
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872

- 18 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 547

rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
apessin@finekaplan.com

Craig L. Briskin
MEHRI & SKALET, P.L.L.C.
1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
cbriskin@findjustice.com

Linda P. Nussbaum
Bradley J. Demuth
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Telephone: (917) 438-9102
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

Michael E. Criden
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, Florida 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
mcriden@Cridenlove.com

Jayne A. Goldstein
Natalie Finkelman Bennett
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER &
SHAH, LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515-0123
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing


Litigation

- 19 -
Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 548

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James E. Cecchi, certify that, on this date, the foregoing document was served by filing

it on the courts CM/ECF system and additionally via electronic mail to all counsel of record.

Dated: April 28, 2017 /s/ James E. Cecchi


James E. Cecchi

- 20 -