Exhibit 10-Nowak v. Ford Motor Co., #

MOTION to Appoint Counsel

E.D. Mich.September 9, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN IN RE: REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION No. 2:09-md-2042 MDL. No. 2042 Honorable Sean F. Cox MOTION BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C AS SOLE INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL AND THAT NO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED NOW The vast majority of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation, through their counsel, respectfully submit this Motion, and in support state as follows: 1. On August 24, 2009, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, through counsel, appeared before this Honorable Court for a status conference. 2. On August 24, 2009, this Court entered an Order Regarding Motions For Appointment As Interim Class Counsel (Docket No. 73), in which the Court ordered that “Plaintiffs’ Motions for Appointment as Interim Class Counsel/Liaison Counsel and for Appointment to the Interim Executive Committee must be filed NO LATER THAN Wednesday, September 9, 2009.” 3. This Motion and accompanying Brief in support are submitted pursuant to the Court’s Order. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing and based on the Brief in support of this Motion, the movants request that the Miller Law Firm, PC be appointed sole interim lead counsel and that no executive committee be appointed now. In the alternative, if the court determines that an executive committee is necessitated, movants request that The Miller Law Firm, PC be Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 1 of 39 2 appointed sole interim lead counsel and Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld LLP be designated as the members of the executive committee. DATED: September 9, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC /s/ E. Powell Miller E. Powell Miller (P39487) David H. Fink (P28235) 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, Michigan 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 epm@millerlawpc.com Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 2 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN IN RE: REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION No. 2:09-md-2042 MDL. No. 2042 Honorable Sean F. Cox BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C AS SOLE INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL AND THAT NO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED NOW Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 3 of 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES………………………..…….…ii STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED……………………………………….……………...iii A. Standards Governing The Present Motion………………………………………………...1 B. The Miller Law Firm Is Well-Qualified To Lead The Prosecution of This Case..………..2 C. Co-Lead Counsel Is Not Necessary In This Case.………………….……………………..5 D. The OnStar Model Works: No Executive Committee is Necessary……………………....6 E. In the Alternative, if the Court Finds it Appropriate to Appoint an Executive Committee, The Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld Firms Should be Selected as an Executive Committee……….…………………………………………..……..……………………..7 1. The Kaplan Fox firm is Well-Qualified…..………………...………………………….7 a. Background of Kaplan Fox………………...……………………………...7 b. The Kaplan Fox Team…...……………………………..…………………9 2. The Hausfeld Firm Is Well Qualified...……………………………………...…….....10 F. The MLF Application Has Strong Support From Firms Experienced In Complex Antitrust Class Action Litigation………………….………….13 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 4 of 39 ii CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 5 of 39 iii STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED Should the Miller Law Firm, PC be appointed as sole interim lead counsel? Movants Say: Yes Should an executive committee be created at this time? Movants Say: No If the Court determines that the creation of an executive committee is warranted, should the law firms Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld LLP be designated its sole members? Movants Say: Yes Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 6 of 39 A. Standards Governing The Present Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), this Court may “designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Similarly, the Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) (2007) (the “Manual”) recommends that early in complex litigation the court select and authorize one or more attorneys to act on behalf of other counsel and their clients. Counsel so designated “assume a responsibility to the court and an obligation to act fairly, efficiently, and economically in the interests of all parties and parties’ counsel.” Manual, § 10.22. While neither Rule 23(g) nor the Advisory Committee Notes explicitly state the standards to be applied in choosing interim class counsel, courts have held that the same factors that apply in choosing class counsel at the time of certification of the class (that is, the standards set forth in Rule 23(g)(1)) apply in choosing interim class counsel. See, e.g., Hill v. The Tribune Co., No. 05 C 2602, 2005 WL 3299144, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2005) (“Rule 23(g) provides criteria to consider when appointing class counsel. No distinction is made regarding appointing interim counsel.”) Firms designated class counsel have the duty to represent the interests of the class “fairly and adequately.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). When competing applications for class counsel are filed, the Court is directed to consider the following factors: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the type of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 7 of 39 2 (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). MLF easily meets the Rule 23(g) standards. B. The Miller Law Firm Is Well-Qualified To Lead The Prosecution of This Case This Motion is submitted by counsel in 32 of the 42 direct purchaser cases pending before this Court, who support the appointment of the Miller Law Firm, P.C. (“MLF”) as sole Interim Lead Counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs, and who believe that appointing an executive committee is unnecessary at this time.1 MLF has been involved from inception, working closely with the Kaplan Fox firm to investigate the case and to file the first action in this district. Movants have consulted leading experts regarding industry and economic issues presented by this case, utilized investigators to ascertain facts and identify witnesses, researched the market and relevant products and closely monitored parallel proceedings including those taking place in Brazil. MLF has also worked closely with Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld LLP to organize most of the other counsel who filed cases in this matter. This Motion is supported by a great majority of Michigan counsel including, Norman Tucker and Jason Thompson of Sommers Schwartz, Paul Novak of Milberg, Pat Cafferty of Cafferty Faucher and Mark Baumkel. MLF also has the support of the overwhelming majority of the firms in this litigation and representatives of three of those firms have provided affidavits in support: the Affidavit of Steven Schwartz of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, who served as co-lead counsel with Mr. Miller on two successful national class action cases (Exhibit 2); the Affidavit of Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis P.C., who led the OSB Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation and worked directly with Messrs. Miller and Fink in that national antitrust 1 In support of this Motion, E. Powell Miller has submitted an Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 8 of 39 3 MDL and witnessed the efficient and effective leadership of the MLF in In re OnStar Contract Litig., MDL No. 1867 (E.D. Mich.) (“OnStar”) (Exhibit 3); and, the Affidavit of Mark Baumkel who worked with Mr. Miller as co-lead counsel in successful national class actions against manufacturers of dietary supplements (Exhibit 4). As confirmed by the support of the consensus of the firms that have appeared in this case, MLF is well-qualified to serve as sole Interim Lead Counsel. MLF has extensive experience litigating complex class actions and antitrust actions throughout the United States and, particularly, in the Eastern District of Michigan. As a result, MLF has been appointed lead counsel or has had substantial responsibility in numerous class action cases in the Eastern District of Michigan continuously since 1995. MLF also has extensive experience outside of Michigan. See MLF’s Highlights of Class Action Experience, which is Exhibit A to the Affidavit of E. Powell Miller (“Mr. Miller”). For example, in March of 2009, MLF was appointed Co- Lead Counsel in the AIG Securities Litigation in the Southern District of New York representing, as Special Assistant Attorney General, the State of Michigan Retirement Systems. MLF’s experience has been recognized nationally. In fact, the firm’s managing shareholder, Mr. Miller, was appointed in August of 2009 as Co-Chair of the American Bar Association Subcommittee on MDL and Class Action Procedure. Class action cases are rarely tried, but MLF believes it important to also handle complex commercial litigation cases in order to ensure that the firm has sharpened trial skills in the event trial becomes necessary in a class case. Mr. Miller has extensive trial experience, with 11 consecutive victories, including obtaining: a multi-million dollar bench trial award in July of 2009 in which the trial court described Mr. Miller’s trial work as “superb;” a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Michigan for more than $10 million; a verdict in the Middle District of Florida for more than $20 million; and, several other multi-million dollar verdicts. A summary Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 9 of 39 4 of Mr. Miller’s successes at trial is attached as Exhibit B to his accompanying Affidavit and accounts for every case that he has tried to a verdict. In addition, MLF’s class action cases have resulted in more than $500 million in settlements, including two recent cases where the class received net cash recoveries of 100% of their damages. One of those recent cases, Street v. Siemens, Case No. 03-885, (Pa. Ct. Com. Pls., 2005) (“Siemens”) was featured in Crain’s Detroit Business as a top result for 2005, likely because it was an example of a Michigan firm serving as a lead counsel2 in an out-of-State case, which resulted in a partial summary judgment for the Plaintiff Class, and a $14.4 million settlement reflecting a 100% recovery for more than 1,000 employees in a national class action. The presiding judge, Judge Bernstein, had been assigned to oversee most class actions pending in state court in Philadelphia for a considerable period of time and presided over many class action cases. In approving the settlement in Siemens, Judge Bernstein commented that, “If this case does not restore public confidence in class actions then nothing will.” In Gasperoni v. Metabolife International, Inc., No. Case No. 00-71255 (E.D. Mich. 2001), Mr. Miller served as Co-Lead counsel and achieved a multi-million dollar settlement against a dietary supplement manufacturer of dangerous dietary supplements. The District Court requested a Report and Recommendation on the quality of the work counsel performed from Richard D. Friedman, the Ralph W. Aigler Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. Professor Friedman stated that “Messrs Miller and Baumkel3 are extremely able lawyers of high standing. . . . They are smart, energetic, and resourceful. They are a credit to the bar, and specifically to the 2 Steve Schwartz of the Chimicles firm was Mr. Miller’s Co-Lead in the Siemens case. The Chimicles firm supports the Application of MLF for lead counsel in this case. 3 Mark Baumkel was Mr. Miller’s Co-Lead counsel in the Metabolife case. Mr. Baumkel supports the Application of MLF for lead counsel in this case. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 10 of 39 5 plaintiffs’ bar. I suspect that if more plaintiffs’ lawyers were like them the public would have a far more positive view of lawyers than it has.” This year, Mr. Miller was named one of the “Top 10” lawyers in Michigan in the September 2009 rankings published by SuperLawyers magazine. In the last two years, nine MLF attorneys have been recognized by SuperLawyers. MLF has twenty attorneys experienced in complex litigation, including individual and class action antitrust litigation in numerous states. In addition to committing the full resources of the firm to this case, MLF will commit the daily personal involvement of Mr. Miller and David H. Fink. Messrs. Miller and Fink commit to this Court that if MLF is appointed Interim Lead Counsel, they will be personally intimately involved with litigating this case, including attending hearings and will personally ensure the effective utilization of resources from the many firms which have agreed to assist in the litigation. Further, MLF believes that it can work efficiently with defense counsel. Mr. Miller has been lead counsel in cases opposite Messrs. Sankbeil, Feeney, McIntrye and Barnes. Mr. Iwrey is a former colleague of Mr. Miller at the Honigman firm. Mr. Miller believes that mutual respect has developed between him and defense counsel over many years and that they will continue to be professional adversaries in many cases to come. Lawyers who know and trust each other promote the efficient and civil administration of complex litigation. C. Co-Lead Counsel Is Not Necessary In This Case MLF also believes that it is unnecessary to appoint co-lead counsel. Appointing two firms to serve as co-lead counsel would likely cause duplication of efforts and inefficient prosecution of this case. No co-lead counsel was appointed by this Court in OnStar, the case that this Court has pointed to as being instructive on how the leadership structure here should be devised. Other counsel appointment decisions in this District have similarly favored Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 11 of 39 6 appointment of sole lead counsel. See In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-md-01952 (E.D. Mich.); In re Delphi Corp. ERISA Litig., 230 F.R.D. 496, 498-99 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (appointing sole lead counsel despite request for co-lead appointment).4 As the accompanying affidavit of Jeffrey Kodroff, at Exhibit 3 indicates, MLF has functioned well as sole lead in OnStar and the case has been run efficiently and effectively. MLF intends to do the same in this case. D. The OnStar Model Works: No Executive Committee Is Necessary MLF, together with the other movants, also respectfully submits that appointing an executive committee is unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings. Designating such a committee would result in unnecessary duplication of effort, could result in the development of factions among law firms, and may impair the effective and efficient administration of this case. MLF suggests that, at least initially, MLF, as Interim Lead Counsel, should have the authority and responsibility to coordinate the efforts of attorneys willing to assist in the prosecution of this case in the same manner as it has in OnStar. In OnStar, MLF has effectively managed the many law firms involved, thereby avoiding duplication of effort and unnecessary layers of leadership while efficiently litigating the case, without any disagreements among counsel – and without a formal executive committee.5 MLF would employ a similar organizational structure in the prosecution of this case. 4 In other districts, there has been an increasing trend to appoint sole lead counsel in antitrust class actions. See, e.g., In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.); In re Static Random Access (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.); In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal.) 5 In On-Star, the Court appointed David Fink of MLF as the sole member of the Executive Committee. It has not been necessary to add layers of leadership in OnStar, and movants do not believe it will be necessary here. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 12 of 39 7 Movants in this case, as in OnStar, propose a lean leadership structure with a sole lead and no executive committee or, if an executive committee is necessary, only two firms. This lean structure promotes the efficient prosecution of the case. E. In the Alternative, if the Court Finds it Appropriate to Appoint an Executive Committee, the Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld Firms Should be Designated as the Sole Members of the Committee If the Court decides to appoint an executive committee at this time, MLF and the other firms joining in this Motion suggest that the Kaplan Fox firm and the Hausfeld firm be appointed as the members of the executive committee. Both firms have extensive experience in class action litigation and specialized expertise in antitrust litigation. 1. The Kaplan Fox firm is Well-Qualified a. Background of Kaplan Fox Specializing in antitrust and other complex cases, Kaplan Fox is one of the nation’s preeminent plaintiff class action firms, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago, with 31 attorneys. For example, Kaplan Fox served as co-lead counsel in In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1200 (W.D. Pa.) and in In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Litig., MDL No. 1087 (C.D. Ill.), two significant and successful antitrust litigations. (See attached Affidavit of Robert N. Kaplan, Exhibit 5.) Each produced key appellate rulings and the appeals were argued by two Kaplan Fox partners – Robert Kaplan in In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2004) and Greg Arenson in In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002). In each of these cases, Kaplan Fox successfully obtained complete or partial reversals of district court decisions granting summary judgment to defendants. Kaplan Fox attorneys then led the extensive preparation for trial of both these complicated antitrust cases until they settled within sight of trial for totals of $122 million and $531 million, respectively. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 13 of 39 8 Id. At the end of the Fructose case, Judge Mihm complimented plaintiffs’ lead counsel, including Messrs. Kaplan and Arenson, stating: I’ve said many times during this litigation that you and the attorneys who represented the defendants here are as good as it gets. Very professional. At least in my presence or in my contacts with you, you’ve always been civil. You’ve always been cutting to the chase and not wasting my time or each other’s time or adding to the cost of the litigation. (See Affidavit of Robert N. Kaplan at ¶16; Exhibit 5). Kaplan Fox is currently serving as lead or co-lead counsel in a number of ongoing complex antitrust litigations, including In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1682 (E.D. Pa.) (with settlements of $97 million); In re Air Cargo Services Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1775 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (with partial settlements of more than $85 million); In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1684 (E.D. Pa.) (with partial settlments of $46.8 million); Meijer, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Holding Co., III, Ltd., et al., Case No. 05-2195 (D.D.C.); and In re Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 06-cv-202-MHW (S.D. Ohio). (See Ex. A to Kaplan Aff.). In the event the Court appointed Kaplan Fox to the Interim Executive Committee, Robert Kaplan, Linda Nussbaum, and Gregory Arenson will participate in the representation of plaintiffs and, if certified, the class in this case. Each brings strengths to this unique team of class action antitrust lawyers – Mr. Kaplan has more than 40 years experience in antitrust litigation; Ms. Nussbaum is a skillful, no-nonsense litigator with 30 years of broad-based antitrust experience; and Mr. Arenson has a strong economic background and procedural expertise applicable to antitrust cases. They have been co-lead counsel in antitrust class cases. They have tried antitrust cases. They have settled major antitrust cases. They have been involved in litigating every aspect of significant and complex antitrust cases from inception to conclusion for decades. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 14 of 39 9 b. The Kaplan Fox Team As detailed in the Kaplan Affidavit, Mr. Kaplan is a senior member of both the plaintiffs’ antitrust and securities bar. In addition to being Co-Lead Counsel in several major antitrust cases, Mr. Kaplan is currently serving as Special Assistant Attorney General on behalf of the State Treasurer of the State of Michigan as Custodian for several Public Employee Retirement Systems in an action against Tyco International, Ltd.6 Id. p 2-3. In 2009, partial settlements were achieved. Ms. Nussbaum is experienced in virtually every aspect of complex antitrust litigation and has served and is serving as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in many significant antitrust cases that have resulted in substantial recoveries. See id. p 3-5. Mr. Arenson’s economics background has provided a basis for his recognized expertise in handling economic issues in antitrust cases both at class certification and on the merits. Id. p.5-6. Moreover, not only does Kaplan Fox have a strong working relationship with the Miller Firm, but Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld LLP have worked for many months developing this case. This has included a number of meetings held at Kaplan Fox’s and Hausfeld’s offices to which all direct purchaser counsel were invited to discuss the case and to coordinate efforts so that the case can be processed efficiently. As a result, the vast majority of direct purchaser plaintiffs’ counsel have joined in this motion. Moreover, Kaplan Fox and Hausfeld were among the first firms to 6 State Treasurer of the State of Michigan, as Custodian of the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System, State Employees’ Retirement System, Michigan State Police Retirement System and Michigan Judges Retirement System v. Tyco-Int’l, Ltd., et al., originally filed in this district, and later transferred to the District of New Hampshire for coordinated pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation, MDL No. 1335. The Miller Law Firm is co-counsel with Kaplan Fox on behalf of the Michigan Retirement Systems. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 15 of 39 10 file cases in this district and Linda Nussbaum of Kaplan Fox argued successfully before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that these cases should be centralized in this district. 2. The Hausfeld Firm Is Well Qualified If the Court desires to appoint an Executive Committee at this time, Hausfeld LLP is also highly qualified to serve on it. Hausfeld LLP filed Acme of Jamestown, Inc. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., No. 2:09-cv-1045 (E.D. Mich.) (filed on February 26, 2009). That complaint reflected diligent research and contained extensive details about the operation of the alleged conspiracy. As reflected in that complaint, this case involves anticompetitive conduct occurring across the globe that has a direct impact in the United States and has prompted investigations by antitrust regulators in this country, the European Union and Brazil. Due to the major international presence it maintains in addition to a leading domestic practice, Hausfeld LLP could provide unique assistance in this case. In addition to its four United States offices (in Washington D.C., New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco), it has an office in London and is the key player in collective claimants’ cases brought in the European Union. Hausfeld LLP also has numerous affiliations with law firms in Latin America that will be useful in prosecuting these cases in the United States. Hausfeld LLP submits that it is uniquely situated to make optimal use of information learned through the international investigations that is relevant to the alleged conspiracy in the United States. Hausfeld LLP has also done significant work in investigating the allegations supporting the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this litigation. It has done extensive economic and company research on the market for hermetic compressors in the United States. Hausfeld LLP has also undertaken to organize counsel in the numerous cases filed throughout the United States. It, along with the Kaplan Fox firm, has been instrumental in organizing counsel for the Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 16 of 39 11 plaintiffs in a majority of the direct purchaser cases now centralized before this Court, as was reflected at the August 24 hearing. Hausfeld LLP’s 23 lawyers include some of the most experienced antitrust and class action attorneys in the United States. A copy of the firm’s curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A to the accompanying Affidavit of Michael Hausfeld (Exhibit 6). More information on the firm is available at its comprehensive website, . Michael Hausfeld, formerly the chairman of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll P.L.L.C., and now the chairman of Hausfeld LLP, is regarded as one of the country’s top civil litigators and has been practicing for 40 years. He was recently recognized as one of the “Top 100 Influential Lawyers in America” by the National Law Journal and was praised by Chief Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York as one of the two “leading class action lawyers in the United States” and by the New York Times as one of the “most prominent antitrust lawyers” in the nation. Michael Lehmann, the head of Hausfeld LLP’s San Francisco office, who has been practicing for 32 years and who appeared at the August 24 hearing, has played a major role in a number of significant recent multidistrict antitrust class actions, including In re International Air Transport Surcharge Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1793 (N.D. Cal.) (“Air Passenger”); In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1913 (N.D. Cal.); In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1950 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1631 (D. Conn.); In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1368 (S.D.N.Y.), and In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1826 (N.D. Cal.). Other highly experienced attorneys at Hausfeld LLP who are working on this case include Robert Eisler, who has 20 years of experience in class action and complex litigation (and who also attended the August 24 hearing) and William Butterfield, who has 30 years of Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 17 of 39 12 experience in complex litigation and is one of the country’s leading experts in the field of electronic discovery. Many of the firm’s attorneys have served in leadership roles in major antitrust cases in many jurisdictions, including Michigan. See, e.g., In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich.). Their cases have led to some of the largest antitrust settlements in history, including the Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation in the Northern District of California, in which settlements of $320 million were obtained, and the Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation in which settlements of $458 million were recovered. The depth of antitrust experience at Hausfeld LLP has been widely recognized since the firm’s formation in November of 2008 by judges presiding over antitrust class actions. The firm has been appointed as co-lead counsel in no fewer than 19 major antitrust class actions, and its lawyers have garnered significant praise in the process. In Air Passenger, for example, the firm was praised by the District Judge, Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California, for its efforts in achieving “really, an outstanding settlement in which a group of lawyers from two firms coordinated the work . . . and brought an enormous expertise and then experience in dealing with the case.” The Court also stated that the firm’s lawyers are “more than competent. They are outstanding.” Transcript of Hearing in Air Passenger, pp. 7-8 (Jan. 29, 2009), attached as Exhibit C to the Hausfeld Affidavit. Similarly, in Four In One Company, Inc. v. SK Foods, 08-cv-03017, 2009 WL 747160 (E.D. Cal., March 20, 2009), District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. of the Eastern District of California praised the firm for having “the breadth of experience, resources and talent necessary to navigate a case of this import.” In that case, “[a]lthough there [was] no question that the other firms proposed as co-lead counsel are also well qualified” the Court believed that only Hausfeld LLP and one other firm “st[ood] out from the rest.” Id. at *3. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 18 of 39 13 Likewise, in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1869 (D.D.C.) (“Rail Freight”), District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia noted that Hausfeld LLP’s lawyers gained the support of the majority of plaintiffs’ counsel because of the “experience brought to the table.” “Memorandum Opinion And Order,” p. 3 (March 13, 2009), attached as Exhibit B to the Hausfeld Affidavit. Hausfeld LLP is similarly supported here. In sum, Hausfeld LLP has a combination of resources, experience, international presence and expertise in antitrust, plaintiff and class action litigation. It also has a strong working relationship with MLF. F. The MLF Application Has Strong Support From Firms Experienced In Complex Antitrust Class Action Litigation Beyond MLF, Hausfeld LLP and Kaplan Fox, 81 other undersigned firms, representing plaintiffs in 32 other cases, support the structure proposed in this motion. Many of these firms are nationally-recognized specialists in antitrust and other class actions themselves, who have attorneys highly qualified to serve as lead or co-lead counsel, or to serve on an Executive Committee. Many of these firms currently serve as lead or co-lead counsel in other ongoing major antitrust and other class actions including some of the most significant cases currently pending. Yet, in the best interests of the class, these firms and their attorneys have agreed to support MLF as sole lead counsel in this case and to support Hausfeld LLP and Kaplan Fox for Executive Committee positions in the event that the Court decides to appoint such a committee at this time. This reflects the consensus that MLF, Hausfeld LLP, and Kaplan Fox have been able to achieve. It also reflects the outstanding leadership MLF has exhibited in both the OnStar case and in other national class actions, as reflected in the accompanying affidavits. These firms collectively agree that the Miller Law Firm is most well qualified to serve as lead counsel in this Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 19 of 39 14 case. As a result, they are committed to serve the interests of the class under the MLF’s sound leadership. The degree of consensus here is a significant factor in weighing the present motion. “By far, the most common method [of selecting among competing applicants] is the so-called private ordering approach.” Manual § 21.272. Accord Third Circuit Task Force Report on Selection of Class Counsel, 208 F.R.D. 340, 355 (2002) (“Report”); Herbert B. Newberg & Albert Conte, 3 Newberg on Class Actions, § 9.35 (4th ed. West 2008) (a court should encourage the parties to agree on lead counsel). Under the private ordering approach, the attorneys agree upon who should be lead counsel, subject to approval by the court after it determines that counsel is adequate. See Manual, § 21.272. There have been numerous cases where private ordering has been recognized, even over the vocal protests of a minority of dissenters. See, e.g., In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1717 (D.Del.); In re Foundry Resins Antitrust Litig., No. 2:04-md-1638 (S.D. Ohio); Processed Eggs Antitrust Litig,, No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1869 (D.D.C.). The vast majority of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs support this Motion. Although a small minority of courts (mostly in securities cases brought under the PSLRA) have designated lead counsel using an auction method – essentially asking the moving attorneys to bid against each other to see who will accept the lowest amount of fees -- this approach has been strongly disfavored. This approach risks encouraging less qualified attorneys to bid lower than attorneys more qualified to handle complex litigation. As the Third Circuit Task Force found: Some argue that auctions are an effective means of assuring that the lead plaintiff will fulfill its fiduciary obligation to retain effective counsel for the class. Yet it is in part precisely because we hold lead plaintiffs to that fiduciary duty that, on balance, we conclude that auctions are a highly imperfect device. The lead plaintiff has the fiduciary obligation not to retain the cheapest qualified counsel, Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 20 of 39 15 but rather to obtain the qualified counsel that is best able to obtain a maximum net recovery for the class. (Report, 208 F.R.D. at 387. The auction approach or a predetermined cap on fees also usurps the appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion to award fees based upon the quality of the result and the Court’s first hand observation of the quality of work performed. It also may encourage Defendants to render the case uneconomic for the class counsel knowing class counsel have a cap on their fees. This is contrary to the best interests of the class because it creates an artificial disincentive for class counsel and an inappropriate mis-alignment of interests between counsel and their clients. The fees in this case, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, should be determined by the exercise of the Court’s discretion after the results are determined and not before the race is run. In sum, MLF has a proven track record in effectively and efficiently leading complex class action litigation. and respectfully requests that the Motion -- brought by the 81 signatory firms -- be granted. Respectfully Submitted, By:__/s/ E. Powell Miller_______________ E. Powell Miller (P 39487) David H. Fink (P 28235) The Miller Law Firm, PC 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: 248-841-2200 Fax: 248-652-2852 epm@millerlawpc.com Robert N. Kaplan Linda P. Nussbaum Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 rkaplan@kaplanfox.com lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 21 of 39 16 Michael E. Criden Kevin B. Love Criden & Love, PA 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Tel: 305-357-9010 Fax: 305-357-9050 mcriden@cridenlove.com klove@cridenlove.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Gateway KGMP Development, Inc. (2:09-cv-10710) Steven D. Liddle Macuga, Liddle, & Dubin, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Tel: 313-392-0015 Fax: 313-392-0025 sliddle@mlclassaction.com Clifford H. Pearson Daniel L. Warshaw Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Tel: 818-788-8300 Fax; 818-788-8104 cpearson@pswplaw.com dwarshaw@pswplaw.com Howard B. Miller Girardi Keese 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-977-0211 Fax: 213-481-1554 tgirardi@girardikeese.com hmiller@girardikeese.com Attorneys For Plaintiffs Kelly Higashi and Dennis Higashi aka/dba K-N-D Appliances (2:09-cv-10720) Bruce L. Simon Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1430 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-433-9000 Fax: 415-433-9008 bsimon@pswplaw.com Kerry Rhoads-Reith Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahony, Ltd. 39475 Thirteen Mile Road, Suite 203 Michael D. Hausfeld Hausfeld LLP 1700 K Street N.W. Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 22 of 39 17 Novi, MI 48377 Tel: 248-994-0060 Fax: 248-994-0061 kreith@smsm.com Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: 202-540-7200 Fax: 202-540-7201 mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com Steven A. Hart Scott W. Henry Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahony, Ltd. 233 South Wacker Drive Sears Tower, Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312-645-7800 Fax: 312-645-7711 shart@smsm.com Michael P. Lehmann Hausfeld LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-633-1908 Fax: 415-358-4980 mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com Allan Steyer Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP One California Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-421-3400 Fax: 415-421-2234 asteyer@steyerlaw.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Acme of Jamestown, Inc. d/b/a Acme the Appliance Store and Lawrence F. Thompson d/b/a Top Floor Home Improvements (2:09-cv-10745) Steven D. Liddle Macuga, Liddle, & Dubin, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Tel: 313-392-0015 Fax: 313-392-0025 sliddle@mlclassaction.com Hollis L. Salzman Kellie Lerner Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 hsalzman@labaton.com Mark Shane The Law Offices of Shane and White, LLC 1676 Route 27 Edison, NJ 08817 Tel: 732-819-8100 Fax: 732-572-9641 mshane@shaneandwhite.com M. Stephen Dampier Vickers Riis Murray and Curran, L.L.C. Post Office Drawer 2568 Mobile, Alabama 36652-2568 Tel: 251-432-9772 Fax: 251-432-9781 sdampier@vickersriis.com Elwood S. Simon Simon & Associates, P.C. 355 S.Woodward Avenue, Suite 250 Birmingham, MI 48009 Tel: 248-646-9730 Fax: 248-258-2335 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 23 of 39 18 Patrick Barrett Barrett Law Offices, P.A. One Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 380 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 Tel: 615-665-9990 Fax: 615-665-9998 pmbarrett3@barrettlawoffice.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Leblanc & Associates, Inc. (2:09-cv-12241) Kevin P. Roddy Wilentz, Goldman 90 Woodbridge Center Dr Suite 900 Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Tel: 732-855-6402 Vincent J. Esades Renae D. Steiner Scott W. Carlson Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55409 Tel: 612-338-4605 Fax: 612-338-4692 vesades@heinsmills.com rsteiner@heinsmills.com scarlson@heinsmills.com Ira Neil Richards Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-731-9004 Fax: 215-731-9044 Ira@trrlaw.com David C. Indiano Indiano & Williams P.S.C. 207 Del Parque St., Third Fl. San Juan, PR 00912 Tel: 787-641-4545 Fax: 787-641-4544 david.indiano@indianolaw.com DeanM. Googasian George A. Googasian Googasian Law Firm 6895 Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138 Tel: 248-540-3333 Fax: 248-540-7213 Email: dgoogasian@googasian.com ggoogasian@googasian.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Rona Distributors, Inc. (2:09-cv-12242) Lisa J. Rodriquez Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC 258 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Tel: 856-795-9002 Fax: 856-795-9887 lisa@trrlaw.com Christopher E. Coleman Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP One Nashville Place Joseph R. Saveri Eric B. Fastiff Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 24 of 39 19 150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Tel: 615-313-9000 Fax: 615-313-9965 Attorneys For Plaintiff WPC 1, Inc., d/b/a Winter Park Construction Company (2:09-cv-10791) 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 jsaveri@lchb.com efastuff@lchb.com Gerald Greenspoon Frank A. Utset Greenspoon Marder, P.A. 3015 N. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Joseph C. Kohn Kohn Swift & Graf, PC One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: 215-238-1700 Fax: 215-238-1968 jkohn@kohnswift.com Andrew W. Morganti Paul Novak Milberg LLP 719 Griswold Street, Suite 820 Detroit, MI 48226 Tel: 313-967-4090 Fax: 313-967-4905 amorganti@milberg.com pnovak@milberg.com E. Powell Miller The Miller Law Firm Miller Building 950 West University Drive, Ste 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: 248-841-2200 Fax: 248-652-2852 epm@millerlawpc.com Attorneys For Plaintiff The Spear Group/St. Charles Landings (2:09-cv-10806) Richard B. Drubel Kimberly H. Schultz Edward A. Baker Matthew J. Henken Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP E. Powell Miller The Miller Law Firm Miller Building 950 West University Drive, Ste 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 25 of 39 20 26 South Main Street Hanover, NH 03755 Tel: 603-643-9090 Fax: 603-643-9010 Tel: 248-841-2200 Fax: 248-652-2852 epm@millerlawpc.com Philip J. Iovieno Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 10 North Pearl Street Albany, New York 12207 Tel: 518-434-0600 Fax: 418-434-0665 Donald L. Knapp, Jr. James G. Fausone Fausone Bohn, LLP 41700 W. Six Mile Road Suite 101 Northville, MI 48168 Tel: 248-380-0000 Fax: 248-380-3434 dknapp@fb-firm.com jfausone@fb-firm.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Hoyt Street Properties, LLC (2:09-cv-10874) Matthew A. Levin J. Matthew Donohue Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf PC 3000 Pacwest Center 1211 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-3730 Tel: 503-295-3085 Fax: 503- 323-9105 Michael J. Freed Steven A. Kanner Douglas A. Millen Robert J. Wozniak, Jr. (P61936) Freed Kanner London & Miller LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Site 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Tel: 224-632-4500 Fax: 224-632-4521 Jason J. Thompson Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 2000 Town Center, Suite 900 Southfield, MI 48075 Tel: 248-355-0300 Fax: 248-935-1917 David R. Shafer Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman LLP 271 Whitney Ave. New Haven, CT 06511 Tel: 203-772-2600 Vernon N. Reaser, Jr. Law Offices of Vernon N. Reaser, Jr. 202 Pecan Drive Victoria, TX 77905 Tel: 361-576-5858 Harry Shulman The Mills Law Firm 880 Las Galinas Ave., Suite Two San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: 415-455-1326 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 26 of 39 21 Attorneys For Plaintiff Quality Appliance Sales & Services (2:09-cv-10889) Mark Reinhardt GarrettD. Blanchfield, Jr. Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651-287-2100 Fax: 651-287-2103 Lisa J. Rodriguez Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC 258 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Tel: 856-795-9002 Fax: 856-795-9887 Eugene A. Spector William G. Caldes Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-496-0300 Fax: 215-496-6611 Attorneys For Plaintiff Appliance Towne, Inc. (2:09-cv-12655) Gary B. Friedman Tracey Kitzman Dean M. Solomon Friedman Law Group, LLP 270 Lafayette Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10012 Tel: 212-680-5150 Fax: 646-227-1151 Jason J. Thompson Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 2000 Town Center, Suite 900 Southfield, MI 48075 Tel: 248-355-0300 Fax: 248-935-1917 Attorneys For Plaintiff Lotter Enterprise, Inc/ d/b/a Patton Electric (2:09-cv-10900) W. Joseph Bruckner Heidi M. Silton Craig S. Davis Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Robert B. Levin Stewart L. Cohen Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-567-3500 Fax: 215-567-6019 scohen@cprlaw.com Roberta Liebenberg, Esq. Donald Perelman, Esq. Fine Kaplan & Black, RPC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-567-6565 Fax: 215-567-5872 rliebenberg@finekaplan.com dperelman@finekaplan.com Paul Mark Sandler Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 27 of 39 22 Robert B. Levin Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street Charles Center South, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201-3147 Tel: 410-385-4272 Fax: 410-539-7611 pms@shapirosher.com rbl@shapirosher.com Robert L. Rothman Allen I.Hirsh Arnal, Golden 171 17th Street NW Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30363 Tel: 404-873-8660 Robert S. Green Green Welling, PC 595 Market Street Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 mied@classcounsel.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Follett Corporation (2:09-cv-12644) P John Brady Daniel D. Owen Christopher K. Wilson Polsinelli Shughart PC Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 120 West 12th Street, Suite 1700 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Attorneys For Plaintiff Barry Burritt d/b/a Burritt’s Maytag Home Appliance Center (2:09-cv-10922) Steven D. Liddle Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Tel: 313-392-0015 sliddle@mlclassaction.com Paul Mark Sandler Robert B. Levin Shairo Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street Charles Center South, Suite 2000 Steven A. Asher Mindee J. Reuben Noah Axler Jeremy S. Spiegel Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 28 of 39 23 Baltimore, MD 21201-3147 Tel: 410-385-0202 Fax: 410-539-7611 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-545-7200 Fax: 215-545-6235 Robert C. Cone Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A. 100 N. Greene St., Suite 600 Greensboro, NC 27401 Tel: 336-271-5230 Fax: 336-274-6590 Attorneys For Plaintiff American Industrial Contractors, Inc. (2:09-cv-12645) R. Edwin Lamberth Steve Olen Steven L. Nicholas Cunningham Bounds, LLC 1601 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36604 Tel: 251-471-6191 Fax: 251-479-1031 rel@cunninghambounds.com sco@cunninghambounds.com slm@cunninghambounds.com Joseph R. Saveri Eric B. Fastiff Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 jsaveri@lchb.com efastuff@lchb.com Mark S. Baumkel Mark S. Baumkel & Associates 30200 Telegraph Road, St. 200 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Tel: 248-642-0444 Fax: 248-642-6661 baumkelm@aol.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Eastern Shore Appliance, Inc. (2:09-cv-10994) Christopher E. Coleman Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Tel: 615-313-9000 Fax: 615-313-9965 Thomas A. Muzilla, Esq. The Muzilla Law Firm, LLC Tower at Erieview, Suite 1100 1301 East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Tel: 216-458-5880 Fax: 216-928-0016 Phillip A. Ciano, Esq. Ciano & Goldwasser, L.L.P. MK Ferguson Plaza 1500 West Third Street, Suite 460 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Tel: 216-658-9900 Fax: 216-658-9920 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 29 of 39 24 tom@muzillalaw.com pac@c-g-law.com Joseph Goldberg, Esq. Freeman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives, P.A. 20 First Plaza, Suite 1700 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Tel: 954-515-0123 Fax: 954-515-0124 jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com Natalie Finkelman, Esq. Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Tel: 610-891-9880 Fax: 610-891-9883 nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com Christopher G. Hayes, Esq. Law Offices of Christopher G. Hayes 225 South Church Street West Chester, PA 19382 Tel: 610-431-9505 Fax: 610-431-1269 chris@chayeslaw.com Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Chimicles & Tikellis LLP One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19041 Tel: 610-642-8500, Ext. 319 Fax: 610-649-3633 steveschwartz@chimicles.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Seatrade International Company (2:09-cv-12647) Paul Mark Sandler, Esq. Robert B. Levin, Esq. Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201-3147 Tel: 410-385-4272 Fax: 410-539-7611 pms@shapirosher.com rbl@shapirosher.com Stephen F. Wasinger Stephen F. Wasinger PLC 26862 Woodword Avenue, Suite 202 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248-544-1500 Fax: 544-1501 sfw@sfwlaw.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Seaga Manufacturing, Inc. (2:09-cv-11013) Solomon B. Cera Thomas C. Bright Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-777-2230 Fax: 415-777-5189 scera@gbcslaw.com tbright@gbcslaw.com Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 30 of 39 25 Roger M. Schrimp Clinton P. Walker Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva 1601 1 Street, Fifth Floor Modesto, CA 95354 Tel: 209-526-3500 Fax: 209-526-3534 rschrimp@damrell.com cwalker@damrell.com Attorneys For Plaintiff OK TV & Appliances, LLC (2:09-cv-11031) Steven D. Liddle Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C. 975 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Tel: 313-392-0015 Fax: 313-392-0025 Arthur N. Bailey Arthur N. Bailey & Associates 111 West Second Street, Suite 4500 Jamestown, NY 14701 Tel: 716-664-2967 Fax: 716-481-2983 artlaw@windstream.net Daniel M. Cohen Jonathan W. Cuneo Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: 202-789-3960 Fax: 202-789-1813 jonc@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com Eric E. Castelblanco Law Office of Eric B. Castelblanco 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 302 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: 323-951-0180 Fax: 323-951-0183 attorney@castelblanco.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Burritt Appliance Service (2:09-cv-12643) Brian P. Murray Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 bmurray@murrayfrank.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Altered Air, Inc. (2:09-cv-12662) Eugene A. Spector William G. Caldes Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-496-0300 Fax; 215-496-6611 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 31 of 39 26 Steig Olson Hausfeld LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel: 646-278-0877 Fax: 212-480-8560 Paul Mark Sandler, Esq. Robert B. Levin, Esq. Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201-3147 Tel: 410-385-4272 Fax: 410-539-7611 pms@shapirosher.com rbl@shapirosher.com Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Chimicles & Tikellis LLP One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19041 Tel: 610-642-8500, Ext. 319 Fax: 610-649-3633 steveschwartz@chimicles.com Warren Rubin, Esq. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: 215-561-3500 Fax: 215-561-3000 warren@bbernardmgross.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Wilma Francis (2:09-cv-12648) Steven A. Kanner Douglas A. Millen Robert J. Wozniak Donald L. Sawyer Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Tel: 224-632-4500 skanner@fklmlaw.com dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com dsawyer@fklmlaw.com Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Theresa L. Groh Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, L.P.A. 35 E. Seventh Street, Suite 600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: 513-345-8291 jgoldenberg@mgsglaw.com tgroh@mgsglaw.com Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 32 of 39 27 Daniel R. Karon Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. 55 Public Square, Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-622-1851 karon@gsk-law.com Attorneys For Plaintiff Central Furniture Mart, Inc. (2:09-cv-12663) Mark S. Goldman Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. 101 W. Elm Street, Suite 360 Conshohocken, PA 19428 goldman@gsk-law.com Joseph J. DePalma Katrina Carroll Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: 973-623-3000 Fax: 973-623-0858 jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com kcarroll@ldgrlaw.com David J. Manogue Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, PC 436 Seventh Avenue The 26th Floor Kppers Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: 412-642-2300 Fax: 412-642-2309 dmanogue@ssem.com Vernon N. Reaser, Jr. Law Office of Vernon N. Reaser, Jr. 202 Pecan Drive Victoria, TX 77905-0686 Tel: 361-576-5858 Fax: 31-7741 Attorneys For Plaintiff South Texas Ventilation Heating & Air Conditioning (2:09-cv-12656) Richard M. Violin Douglas G. Thompson, Jr. Michael G. McLellan Finkelstein Thompson LLP 1050 30th Street NW Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-337-8000 Fax: 202-337-8090 James P. Ulwick Kramon and Graham One South Street Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: 410-752-6030 Fax: 410-539-1269 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 33 of 39 28 Attorneys For Plaintiff Friedhaber’s (2:09- cv-12649) Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey & Associates 111 West Second Street Jamestown, NY 14701 Tel: 716-664-2967 Fax: 716-664-2983 Kenny P. Roddy, Esq. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Suite 900 Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958 Tel: 732-636-8000 Fax: 732-855-6117 Gregory P. Hansel Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP P.O. Box 9546 One City Center Portland, ME 04112-9546 Tel: 207-791-3000 Fax: 207-791-3111 Zack M. Azar Azar, Azar & Moore LLC 2740 Zelda Road, 4th Floor Montgomery, Alabama 36106 Tel: 334-265-8551 Fax: 334-264-9453 Attorneys For Plaintiff John Lucido d/b/a Lucido’s Custom Services (2:09-cv-12657) Paul Mark Sandler Robert B. Levin Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street Charles Center Street South, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201-3147 Tel: 410-385-0202 Fax: 410-539-7611 Howard Sedran Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Tel: 215-592-1500 Fax: 215-592-4663 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 34 of 39 29 John R. Malkinson Malkinson & Halpern, PC 223 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1010 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312-427-9600 Fax: 312-427-9629 Attorneys For Plaintiff Distinctive Companies, Ltd. (2:09-cv-12663) Mark C. Gardy James S. Notis Kelly A Noto Gardy & Notis, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Tel: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-56707337 Joe R. Whatley, Jr. Whatley & Drake 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: 212-447-7070 Fax: 212-447-7077 Richard P. Rouoco Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC 2001 Park Place, Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: 205-328-9574 Fax: 206-328-9669 Attorneys For Plaintiff Amy Gunnett d/b/a Cain Construction (2:09-cv-12660) James C. Wyly Jeremy Y. Hutchinson Patton Roberts Century Bank, Suite 400 2900 St. Michael Drive Texarkana, Texas 75503 Tel: 903-334-7000 Fax: 903-334-7007 Jill P. Meyer Frost Brown Todd LLC 2200 PNC Center 201 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182 Tel: 513-651-6124 Fax: 513-651-6981 jmeyer@fbtlaw.com James F. Keller Gottesman & Associates, LLC 2121 URS Center 36 East 7th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: 513-651-2121 Fax: 513-651-2131 jfk@zgottesmanlaw.com Stephen J. Wenke 36 East 7th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: 513-651-2126 Fax: 513-651-2131 Swenke7403@aol.com Bryan L. globes Michael S. Tarringer Cafferty Faucher LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-864-2800 Fax: 215-864-2810 Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 35 of 39 30 Jason S. Hartley Troutman Sanders LLP 550 West B Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-235-4040 Fax: 619-231-8796 Attorneys For Plaintiff Regal Custom Fixtures, Inc. (2:09-cv-12663) E. Powell Miller The Miller Law Firm, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: 248-841-2200 Fax: 248-652-2842 epm@millerlawpc.com Richard B. Drubel Kimberly H. Schultz Edward A. Baker Matthew J. Henken Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 26 South Main Street Hanover, NH 03755 Tel: 602-643-9090 Fax: 603-643-9010 Philip J. Iovieno Teresa Monroe Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 10 North Pearl Street Albany, New York 12207 Tel: 518-434-0500 Fax: 518-434-0665 Attorneys For Plaintiff L&M TV & Appliances, LLC (2:09-cv-11549) Donald L. Knapp, Jr. James G. Fausone Fausone Bohn, LLP 41700 W. Six Mile Road Suite 101 Northville, MI 48168 Tel: 248-380-0000 Fax: 248-380-3434 dknapp@fb-firm.com jfausone@fb-firm.com Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Theresa L. Groh Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, L.P.A. 35 E. Seventh Street, Suite 600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: 513-345-8291 jgoldenberg@mgsglaw.com tgroh@mgsglaw.com Mark S. Goldman Steven A Kanner Douglas A. Millen Robert J. Wozniak Donald L. Sawyer Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Tel: 224-632-4500 skanner@fklmlaw.com dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 36 of 39 31 Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. 101 W. Elm Street, Suite 360 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: 484-342-0700 goldman@gsk-law.com dsawyer@fklmlaw.com Daniel R. Karon Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. 55 Public Square, Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-622-1851 karon@gsk-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Art’s TV & Appliance (2:09-cv-12663) Patrick Rocco Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 65 Madison Ave., Suite 333 Morristown NJ 07960 Tel: (973) 998 6925 Fax: (973) 998 6926 Manuel Dominguez Berman DeValerio 4280 Professional Center Dr. Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410 Tel: (561) 835 9400 Michael Goldberg Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, Ca. 90067 Tel: (301) 201 9150 Attorneys For Plaintiff B & B Remodeling and Foundation, LLC (2:09-cv-12661) Paul Mark Sandler Robert B. Levin Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler 36 South Charles Street Charles Center South, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201-3147 Tel: 410-385-4272 Fax: 410-539-7611 pms@shapirosher.com rbl@shapirosher.com Daniel E. Gustafson Jason S. Kilene Michelle J. Looby Daniel C. Hedlund Gustafson Gluek PLLC Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 37 of 39 32 650 Northstar East 608 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612-333-8844 Fax: 612-339-6922 dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com Robert J. Gralewski Gergosian & Grawlewski LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-237-8500 Fax: 619-237-9555 bob@gergosian.com Attorneys For Plaintiffs Wettstein and Sons, Inc. d/b/a Wettstein’s (2:09-cv-00655) Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 38 of 39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 9, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record registered for electronic filing. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. _/s/ E. Powell Miller _ E. Powell Miller (P39487) David H. Fink (P28235) 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, Michigan 48307 (248) 841-2200 dhf@millerlawpc.com Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 105 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 39 of 39