For more than 20 years, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman has successfully prosecuted hundreds of cases involving drug and pharmaceutical recall claims, defective products liability cases, mass tort and environmental liability exposure claims, and antitrust cases for the plaintiffs it has represented. The firm is currently the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the Diet Drug Products Liability Litigation (the “Fen-Phen” litigation) – a nationwide class action with 600,000 class members that will involve $6 billion in benefits. The firm is among a handful of law firms spearheading the national Vioxx litigation against Merck that is pending in the United States District Court as a Multidistrict Litigation matter. In that case, Arnold Levin is a member of the executive committee of counsel who are directing the course of that litigation.
The dozens of high profile complex actions successfully litigated by the firm include representation of a certified nationwide class of public schools to recover the cost of remediation and abating asbestos contamination in public schools (the “Asbestos School Litigation”), the Ford Explorer SUV rollover case, the Bridgestone tire litigation, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill litigation, the Three Mile Island nuclear radiation release litigation, and litigation involving the contamination of the town of Times Beach, Missouri with Dioxin that resulted in the forced closure of that town by the United States government through the EPA and the relocation of all of its citizens.
In addition to the Diet Drug Products Liability Litigation, Michael D. Fishbein, Arnold Levin, Laurence S. Berman and Fred Longer have developed an exceptional reputation in cases involving other drug and medical device products regulated by the FDA, including the Orthopedic Bone Screws Product Liability Litigation (where partners Arnold Levin and Michael D. Fishbein were lead counsel), the Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, the Propulsid Products Liability Litigation, the Dalkon Shield Litigation, the Sulzer Hip Replacement Litigation and the PPA Products Liability Litigation. The firm also represents plaintiffs in actions against the makers of Vioxx, Bextra and Baycol.
Partner Arnold Levin had served and continues to serve on Plaintiffs' Steering Committees and Executive Committees of many important cases including: the Asbestos School litigation, the Silicone Gel Breast Implant Product Liability litigation, the Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. Accufix Artrial "J" Leads Products Liability litigation, the Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability litigation, the Rezulin Products Liability litigation, the Vioxx Products Liability Litigation and the Propulsid Products Liability Litigation. He and his partners Howard D. Sedran and Laurence S. Berman have also litigated against the tobacco industry for the creation of a program to monitor health related illnesses, which became a foundation for a tobacco settlement entered into in the state of California.
The firm has also had great success representing plaintiffs in antitrust and price fixing class actions, where its partners, including Howard J. Sedran, have attained leadership roles on Executive and Steering Committees, such as in the well known “Sunday Ticket” litigation involving the National Football League’s method of broadcasting games and required package sales.
Several courts have favorably commented on the quality of work performed by Arnold Levin and the firm.
For example, Judge Rambo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has favorably acknowledged the quality of work of the law firm in her opinion in In re Three Mile Island Litigation, 557 F. Supp. 96 (M.D. Pa. 1982). In that case, the firm was a member of the Executive Committee charged with overall responsibility for the management of the litigation. Notably, the relief obtained included the establishment of a medical monitoring fund for the class. See also, Township of Susquehanna, et al. v. GPU, et al., U.S.D.C., Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 81-0437.
In certifying the class in Weiss v. York Hospital, Judge Muir found that "plaintiff's counsel are experienced in the conduct of complex litigation, class actions, and the prosecution of antitrust matters." Weiss v. York Hospital, No. 80-0134, Opinion and Order of May 28, 1981 at 4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 1981). See also, Weiss v. York Hospital, 628 F. Supp. 1392 (M.D. Pa. 1986). Judge Muir, in certifying a class for settlement purposes, found plaintiff's attorneys to be adequate representatives in In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 76-1500, 77-699, 77-1049 and found in the decision that "the quality of the work performed by Mr. Levin and by the attorneys from Adler-Barish [a predecessor to Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman] who assisted him – as exhibited both in the courtroom and in the papers filed – has been at a high level." In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation, (M.D. Pa., Jan. 1979). Judge Muir also approved of class counsel in the certification decision of Holmes, et al. v. Penn Security and Trust Co., et al., No. 80-0747. Chief Judge Nealon found plaintiffs' counsel to satisfy the requirement of adequate representation in certifying a class in Beck v. The Athens Building & Loan Assn., No. 73-605 at 2 (D. Pa. Mar. 22, 1979). Judge Nealon's opinion relied exclusively on the Court's Opinion in Sommers v. Abraham Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn., 66 F.R.D. 581, 589 (E.D. Pa. 1975) which found that "there is no question that plaintiffs' counsel is experienced in the conduct of a class action...."
Judge Bechtle in the Consumer Bags Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 77-1516 (E.D. Pa.), wherein Arnold Levin was lead counsel for the consumer class, stated with respect to petitioner, “Each of the firms and the individual lawyers in this case have extensive experience in large, complex antitrust and securities litigation.” Furthermore, the Court notes that the quality of the legal services rendered was of the highest caliber.
In Gentry v. C&D Oil Company, 102 F.R.D. 490 (W.D. Ark. 1984), the Court described counsel as "experienced and clearly able to conduct the litigation."
In Jaroslawicz v. Engelhard Corp., No. 84-3641 (D.N.J.), in which this firm played a major role, the Court praised plaintiffs' counsel for their excellent work and the result achieved.
In In Re: Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 2000 WL 1622741, *7 (E.D.Pa. 2000), the Court lauded Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman counsel as follows: "The court also finds that the standing and expertise of counsel for [plaintiffs] is noteworthy. First, class counsel is of high caliber and most PLC members have extensive national experience in similar class action litigation."
In In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, the Court commented on Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman's efforts regarding the creation of the largest nationwide personal injury settlement to date as a "remarkable contribution". PTO No. 2622 (E.D.Pa. October 3, 2002).
In Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., 95 F.Supp.2d 290 (W.D. Pa. 1997), where Mr. Sedran served as one of two Co-Lead Counsel, the District Court made the following comments concerning the work of Co-Lead Counsel:
[t]he Court notes that the class was represented by very competent
attorneys of national repute as specialists in the area of complex
litigation. As such Class Counsel brought considerable resources to
the Plaintiffs’ cause. The Court has had the opportunity to observe
Class counsel first-hand during the course of this litigation and finds
that these attorneys provided excellent representation to the Class.
The Court specifically notes that, at every phase of this litigation,
Class Counsel demonstrated professionalism, preparedness and
diligence in pursuing their cause.
In In re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1244, 447 F.Supp.2d 389 (D. N.J. 2006) where Mr. Sedran served as Co-Lead Counsel, the Court observed:
Class Counsel and Liaison Counsel demonstrated the skills and
effectiveness that come from seasoning and experience in class
action litigation, and more particularly in antitrust cases. In this
case, the Court observed Class Counsel closely and found them to
be well-prepared, knowledgeable, industrious, fair with opposing
counsel, and unfailingly candid with the Court. .... Counsel
devised successful settlement strategies including obtaining of
early promises of cooperation by various defendants against others.
Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared, in all respects, to be a good match
with Defendants’ various excellent counsel.
* * *
In short, Class Counsel’s skills and effectiveness in preparing,
litigating, strategizing, and successfully resolving the case with a
fair settlement were of the highest order of professionalism.
In In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 2011 WL 2909162 (E.D. N.Y. 2011), the Court described Lead Counsel, including Mr. Sedran, as highly experienced practitioners in complex litigation generally and antitrust litigators specifically whose work has been “tireless.”