25.12.2014 Views

Declaration of K. Rehns in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for - Lehman ...

Declaration of K. Rehns in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for - Lehman ...

Declaration of K. Rehns in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for - Lehman ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Case 1:09-md-02017-LAK Document 666-2 Filed 01/13/12 Page 6 <strong>of</strong> 57<br />

• Holocaust Litigation. In the historic Swiss Banks litigation, Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> served,<br />

pro bono, as co-lead counsel <strong>for</strong> Holocaust survivors aga<strong>in</strong>st the Swiss banks that collaborated<br />

with the Nazi regime dur<strong>in</strong>g World War II by launder<strong>in</strong>g stolen funds, jewelry and art<br />

treasures. Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> obta<strong>in</strong>ed a $1.25 billion settlement, lead<strong>in</strong>g the presid<strong>in</strong>g judge to<br />

call the firm’s work “<strong>in</strong>dispensable.” See In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig., Case No. CV<br />

96-4849 (ERK) (MDG) (Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Chief Judge Korman dated July 26, 2002). The Firm<br />

was also a lead counsel <strong>in</strong> litigation by survivors <strong>of</strong> World War II-era <strong>for</strong>ced and slave labor <strong>in</strong><br />

litigation aga<strong>in</strong>st the German companies that pr<strong>of</strong>ited from us<strong>in</strong>g the labor <strong>of</strong> concentration<br />

camp <strong>in</strong>mates. This litigation, which resulted <strong>in</strong> an unprecedented settlement <strong>of</strong> $5.2 billion,<br />

was resolved by mult<strong>in</strong>ational negotiations <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g the defendants, pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs’ counsel, and<br />

the governments <strong>of</strong> several countries <strong>for</strong> approximately two million claimants.<br />

Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> has contributed over 37,000 hours <strong>of</strong> time to human rights and pro bono<br />

cases s<strong>in</strong>ce 1996. As an example, the Firm represented eight survivors and/or families <strong>of</strong> the<br />

victims <strong>of</strong> the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon be<strong>for</strong>e the Federal compensation<br />

fund. Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> has obta<strong>in</strong>ed a substantial recovery <strong>for</strong> each, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the highest<br />

recovery to date, $6.8 million, <strong>for</strong> an <strong>in</strong>jured <strong>in</strong>dividual.<br />

• Roberts v. Texaco, Inc., 94-Civ. 2015 (S.D.N.Y.). Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> represented a<br />

class <strong>of</strong> African-American employees <strong>in</strong> this landmark litigation that resulted <strong>in</strong> the then-largest<br />

race discrim<strong>in</strong>ation settlement <strong>in</strong> history ($176 million <strong>in</strong> cash, salary <strong>in</strong>creases and equitable<br />

relief). The Court hailed the work <strong>of</strong> class counsel <strong>for</strong>, <strong>in</strong>ter alia, “fram<strong>in</strong>g an imag<strong>in</strong>ative<br />

settlement, that may well have important ameliorative impact not only at Texaco but <strong>in</strong> the<br />

corporate context as a whole …”.<br />

• Conanan v. Tanoue, No. 00-CV-3091 (ESH). Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> represented African-<br />

American employees at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) <strong>in</strong> this race<br />

discrim<strong>in</strong>ation suit, which settled <strong>for</strong> $14 million. The settlement provides the largest payment<br />

made <strong>in</strong> an employment discrim<strong>in</strong>ation class action based on race aga<strong>in</strong>st a federal agency.<br />

• Trotter v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 99-893 (RRM) (JJF) (MPT), D. Del. This<br />

suit on behalf <strong>of</strong> hourly workers at Perdue’s chicken process<strong>in</strong>g facilities – which employ<br />

approximately 15,000 people – <strong>for</strong>ced Perdue to pay employees <strong>for</strong> time spent “donn<strong>in</strong>g and<br />

d<strong>of</strong>f<strong>in</strong>g,” that is, obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, putt<strong>in</strong>g on, sanitiz<strong>in</strong>g and remov<strong>in</strong>g protective equipment that they<br />

must use both <strong>for</strong> their own safety and to comply with USDA regulations <strong>for</strong> the safety <strong>of</strong> the<br />

food supply. The suit alleged that Perdue’s practice <strong>of</strong> not count<strong>in</strong>g donn<strong>in</strong>g and d<strong>of</strong>f<strong>in</strong>g time<br />

as hours worked violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. In a separate settlement<br />

with the Department <strong>of</strong> Labor, Perdue agreed to change its pay practices. In addition, Perdue is<br />

required to issue retroactive credit under one <strong>of</strong> its retirement plans <strong>for</strong> “donn<strong>in</strong>g and d<strong>of</strong>f<strong>in</strong>g”<br />

work if the credit would improve employees’ or <strong>for</strong>mer employees’ eligibility <strong>for</strong> pension<br />

benefits. Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> was co-lead counsel.<br />

In addition, Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> is an <strong>in</strong>novator <strong>in</strong> new areas <strong>of</strong> the law. Cohen Milste<strong>in</strong> was <strong>in</strong> the<br />

<strong>for</strong>efront <strong>of</strong> fil<strong>in</strong>g antitrust claims on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>direct purchasers <strong>in</strong> 1993 and 1994, when it filed<br />

state-court actions <strong>in</strong> 18 states on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>direct purchasers <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fant <strong>for</strong>mula. This was the first<br />

ef<strong>for</strong>t to systematically and simultaneously pursue treble damages claims on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>directpurchas<strong>in</strong>g<br />

consumers <strong>in</strong> all states where antitrust laws permitted such claims. This approach, and<br />

variations <strong>of</strong> it, has s<strong>in</strong>ce become the accepted model <strong>for</strong> pursu<strong>in</strong>g antitrust damages on behalf <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>direct-purchas<strong>in</strong>g consumers. The Firm also has been <strong>in</strong> the <strong>for</strong>efront <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong><br />

- 4 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!