Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:7592
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`ANDREW CORZO, SIA HENRY, ALEXANDER
`LEO-GUERRA, MICHAEL MAERLENDER,
`BRANDON PIYEVSKY, BENJAMIN SHUMATE,
`BRITTANY TATIANA WEAVER, and
`CAMERON WILLIAMS, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BROWN UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA
`INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY
`OF CHICAGO, THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA
`UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
`CORNELL UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF
`DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, DUKE UNIVERSITY,
`EMORY UNIVERSITY, GEORGETOWN
`UNIVERSITY, THE JOHNS HOPKINS
`UNIVERSITY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
`OF TECHNOLOGY, NORTHWESTERN
`UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
`DU LAC, THE TRUSTEES OF THE
`UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, WILLIAM
`MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY, VANDERBILT
`UNIVERSITY, and YALE UNIVERSITY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 1:22-cv-00125
`
`Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly
`
`
`
`JOINT DECLARATION OF ERIC L. CRAMER,
`ROBERT D. GILBERT, & EDWARD NORMAND IN SUPPORT
`OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, we, Eric L. Cramer, Robert D. Gilbert, and Edward
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Normand jointly declare:
`
`1.
`
`We are, respectively, partners or shareholders of the law firms of Berger
`
`Montague PC (“Berger Montague”), Gilbert Litigators and Counselors (“GLC”), and Freedman
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:7593
`
`Normand Friedland LLP (“FNF”) (together, “Settlement Class Counsel”). We have been actively
`
`involved in investigating, initiating, and prosecuting this matter from the outset, and also in
`
`resolving this matter with defendant University of Chicago (“UChicago”). We are familiar with
`
`all of these proceedings and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. If called
`
`upon and sworn as witnesses, we would be competent to testify thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms have the same meanings set
`
`forth in the August 7, 2023 Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and the proposed
`
`Settlement Class (“Settlement Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`We respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of the Motion for Provisional
`
`Certification of Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval of Proposed Partial Settlement, Approval of
`
`the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class, and Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
`
`(“Motion”).
`
`4.
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides for UChicago to make cash payments
`
`totaling $13.5 million to Plaintiffs and the proposed Settlement Class, and to offer cooperation in
`
`discovery. As described below, the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
`
`5.
`
`Proposed Class Representatives have been involved in assisting the litigation of
`
`the matter, helping to filing this class action lawsuit, responding to discovery, and have all
`
`considered and approved the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
`
`6.
`
`We believe that the Settlement is an excellent result for the Settlement Class in
`
`light of, inter alia, the substantial and immediate cash payment for the benefit of the Settlement
`
`Class, the risks associated with delay, the promised cooperation in discovery, UChicago’s claim
`
`to have left the 568 Group in 2014, and the fact that the remaining sixteen Defendants1 in the
`
`
`1 “Defendants” is defined in the Settlement Agreement at 1-2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:7594
`
`matter are jointly and severally liable for, and capable of paying, the full amount of anticipated
`
`proved damages. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(e), the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.
`
`SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL’S PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION
`
`7.
`
`Proposed Settlement Class Counsel has devoted substantial time, effort, and
`
`resources to this litigation, beginning with their initial investigation, through the filing of the
`
`Complaint, the successful briefing on the motion to dismiss, and the aggressive pursuit of
`
`document and deposition discovery. Further, Settlement Class Counsel pursued resolution with
`
`UChicago on a separate track over many months, including arm’s length settlement negotiations
`
`and lengthy discussions of the details of the Settlement Agreement and associated documents.
`
`Settlement Class Counsel did not have the benefit of a governmental investigation or
`
`enforcement action in advance of filing the Action, but instead investigated and initiated the
`
`matter solely through their and their clients’ own initiative, joint investigation, and collective
`
`resources.
`
`8.
`
`Several factors complicated Plaintiffs’ case against UChicago relative to that of
`
`the other Defendants in the Action, including that evidence supports UChicago’s claims that it
`
`withdrew from the 568 Group and stopped attending 568 Group meetings in or around 2014,
`
`followed by claimed revisions to its financial aid formula and practices, allegedly, to become
`
`more generous after departing the Group; and that the case is pending in Chicago, and UChicago
`
`has significant financial aid programs targeted at Chicago-area students.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint on January 9, 2022. ECF No. 1. Defendants
`
`filed Motions to Dismiss on April 15, 2022. See ECF Nos. 145, 146, 148. On August 15, 2022,
`
`the Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss in their entirety. See ECF
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:7595
`
`No. 185. The Court analyzed Plaintiffs’ claims and found that Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged,
`
`inter alia, that (1) the challenged conduct did not fall within an antitrust exemption, (2) that
`
`Defendants had committed violations of the Sherman Act, (3) that Plaintiffs injuries were
`
`sufficient to satisfy antitrust injury and antitrust standing requirements, and (4) that the claims
`
`were not time-barred. Id.
`
`10.
`
`Over the next year, Settlement Class Counsel have aggressively litigated the case,
`
`including with regard to fact discovery and expert work. Both pursuits are critical to: establishing
`
`liability and the foundations for class certification; opposing Defendants’ anticipated summary
`
`judgment and Daubert motions; preparing for the jury trial in this matter; and, defending any
`
`judgment on appeal.
`
`11.
`
`To date, in discovery, Settlement Class Counsel have secured the production of
`
`1,412,625 documents in total from all of the Defendants and multiple third parties, including
`
`nearly 78,000 documents from UChicago alone. Plaintiffs have also begun deposing the non-
`
`settling Defendants, including Defendants Dartmouth, MIT, Northwestern, Penn, Yale, and
`
`Vanderbilt.
`
`12.
`
`Settlement Class Counsel also identified, collected, reviewed, and produced 3,814
`
`documents from the Class Representatives. This process involved numerous calls and meetings
`
`(including in-person meetings) to identify and collect documents and identify electronic data
`
`sources subsequently collected by a retained vendor. Once Settlement Class Counsel responded
`
`to Defendants’ document requests on behalf of the Class Representatives and negotiated search
`
`terms with Defendants, Settlement Class Counsel reviewed the universe of collected documents
`
`to locate those appropriate for production. Settlement Class Counsel also worked with the Class
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:7596
`
`Representatives to produce multiple rounds of Interrogatory Responses on behalf of the Class
`
`Representatives, as well as Initial Disclosures.
`
`13.
`
`Settlement Class Counsel also felt it necessary to file motions to compel
`
`compliance with discovery requests served on Defendants. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 331, 402.
`
`14.
`
`In preparation for the thirteen important fact depositions taken in this case to date
`
`and the many more that are scheduled, Settlement Class Counsel (a) identified key documents to
`
`be used at each deposition, (b) prepared extensive deposition outlines, and (c) coordinated
`
`deposition strategy and questioning amongst the Plaintiffs’ legal team, as well as logistics with
`
`Defendants.
`
`15.
`
`Given the importance of expert issues, including economic and damages issues in
`
`this case, Settlement Class Counsel have spent significant time working with their retained
`
`economic experts and consultants to address issues including impact of the challenged conduct
`
`on the members of the proposed class, damages suffered by the class, and anticompetitive effects
`
`of the challenged conduct.
`
`THE UCHICAGO SETTLEMENT
`
`16.
`
`On August 7, 2023, Settlement Class Counsel and UChicago executed the
`
`Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A).
`
`17.
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides for UChicago to make cash payments
`
`totaling $13.5 million to Plaintiffs and the proposed Settlement Class, and to offer cooperation in
`
`discovery. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 7, 20. The Proposed Settlement Class includes approximately 200,000
`
`members.
`
`18.
`
`By way of cooperation, under the Settlement Agreement, UChicago has promised
`
`to work in good faith to ensure the undergraduate financial aid structured data produced by it are
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:7597
`
`reasonably understandable to Settlement Class Counsel and their consultants. Ex. A, ¶ 20.
`
`UChicago has also agreed to complete its pending document production, and to identify by Bates
`
`number documents it produced that relate to information shared by participants in the 568 Group,
`
`UChicago’s undergraduate financial aid practices while it attended 568 Group meetings, and
`
`UChicago’s “need blind” policy. Id. Further, a lawyer for UChicago will meet with Settlement
`
`Class Counsel for up to seven hours to respond in good faith to reasonable questions about:
`
`UChicago’s financial aid practices over time, its participation in the 568 Group, and its
`
`knowledge of the practices, procedures, and any enforcement mechanisms or efforts of the 568
`
`Group. Id. UChicago has further agreed to ask its former Director of College Aid to meet with
`
`Settlement Class Counsel for a witness interview; to negotiate in good faith a declaration or
`
`affidavit in the event Settlement Class Counsel want testimony from a UChicago employee; and
`
`to provide a declaration supporting the business records exception to the hearsay rule in the event
`
`there is an authenticity or hearsay objection to documents kept in the ordinary course of business
`
`produced by UChicago. Id. This cooperation will assist Settlement Class Counsel in
`
`understanding the complex financial aid and other detailed factual questions in the case as well
`
`as in the broader prosecution of the case against the sixteen remaining Defendants.
`
`19.
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides that if more than 650 proposed Class
`
`Members opt-out of the Settlement, UChicago will have the right to terminate the Settlement
`
`Agreement. Ex. A, ¶ 16.
`
`20.
`
`A true and correct copy of the appointment of Huntington National Bank as
`
`Escrow Agent for the settlement funds is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B.
`
`Huntington is a highly respected bank providing consumers, corporations, and others with a
`
`broad range of financial services.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:7598
`
`21.
`
`A proposed preliminary approval order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. We note
`
`that the proposed order attached here to is slightly different than the version attached to the
`
`Settlement Agreement (which was executed earlier). The version of the proposed order attached
`
`hereto was updated, with UChicago’s permission and Defendants’ understanding and agreement,
`
`to include a provision covering to FERPA issues relating to Defendants’ agreement to produce
`
`email and postal contact information for current and former students in the proposed Settlement
`
`Class.
`
`22. We know of no separate agreements or conflicts that would affect the settlement
`
`amount, the eligibility of Settlement Class Members to participate in the Settlement, or the
`
`treatment of Settlement Class Members’ claims.
`
`23. We have collectively prosecuted numerous antitrust class actions as lead counsel
`
`or in other leadership positions. We have collectively negotiated many class and non-class
`
`litigation settlements. In our opinion, the Settlement Agreement with UChicago in this case is
`
`fair, reasonable, and adequate. It provides substantial benefits to members of the Settlement
`
`Class as described herein.
`
`24.
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying Memorandum of Law,
`
`we respectfully submit that under Rule 23(e), the Settlement’s terms are fair, reasonable, and
`
`adequate in all respects and should be approved. Working in conjunction with economist Ted
`
`Tatos (at EconOne), Plaintiffs’ counsel devised a fair, equitable, and efficient proposed Plan of
`
`Allocation, which is summarized in the Plan of Allocation attached hereto as Exhibit D. Mr.
`
`Tatos specializes in economic and statistical analysis, including in antitrust and higher education.
`
`He was previously an Adjunct Professor of economics at the University of Utah, where he has
`
`taught both graduate and undergraduate economics and statistics classes. He is also the Associate
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:7599
`
`Economics Editor of the Antitrust Bulletin journal. He regularly publishes in economic and law
`
`journals on antitrust, labor, statistics, higher education, and intellectual property issues. His work
`
`has appeared in the Antitrust Bulletin, the Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, the
`
`Federal Circuit Bar Journal, the Appraisal Journal, and others. Plaintiffs’ counsel intend to
`
`submit a detailed proposal and schedule for the claims process at the final approval stage.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS SETTLEMENT CLASS
`COUNSEL
`
`Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to be appointed interim co-lead class counsel on
`
`25.
`
`February 9, 2022. ECF No. 87. The Court denied that motion as premature on August 7, 2022.
`
`ECF No. 182. We incorporate that motion, and the accompanying Declaration of Robert Gilbert,
`
`ECF No. 87-3, herein.
`
`26.
`
`The three firms seeking to be appointed Settlement Class Counsel collectively
`
`have decades of experience in antitrust litigation, including one member who, while at the U.S.
`
`Department of Justice, spearheaded the original successful prosecution of the Overlap Group
`
`against several universities who were alleged to have colluded regarding financial aid practices
`
`prior to the initiation of the 568 Presidents Group.
`
`27.
`
`Gilbert Litigators & Counselors (GLC) is a national litigation boutique that
`
`focuses on very substantial commercial cases. The Firm's founding partners are Robert Gilbert
`
`and Elpidio (“PD”) Villarreal. Robert Gilbert is a 1982 graduate of the Yale Law School, where
`
`he was Senior Editor of the Yale Law Journal. For more than three decades, his practice
`
`concentrated on large complex commercial litigation and arbitration, and for approximately two
`
`decades he was an equity partner and a lead trial lawyer at AmLaw 100 firms, including at
`
`Mayer Brown and Dentons.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:7600
`
`28.
`
`Robert Gilbert has very extensive litigation experience concerning disputes in
`
`which hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars are in dispute. As lead counsel, he has
`
`represented several Fortune 100 and large multinational corporations including Samsung,
`
`General Electric, Hyundai Heavy Industries, and GlaxoSmithKline in commercial litigation or
`
`commercial arbitration disputes, including the representation of Samsung as lead counsel in a
`
`multi-billion dollar arbitration with SanDisk while he was a partner at Mayer Brown. He has
`
`repeatedly been selected as a New York Super Lawyer for commercial litigation, and his
`
`litigation approach has been described by the Legal 500 as “creative, thorough and aggressive.”
`
`In the mid-l 990s, while Litigation Counsel at General Electric's Corporate Headquarters, he
`
`managed and directed the defense of GE in a major antitrust case that alleged collusion among
`
`GE, Westinghouse and Square Din the national circuit breaker market. In re Circuit Breaker
`
`Litigation, 984 F. Supp. 1267 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
`
`29.
`
`Robert Gilbert has worked with or collaborated professionally with Elpidio "PD"
`
`Villarreal on a range of matters over the past 26 years, and he is now a partner in Gilbert
`
`Litigators & Counselors. Mr. Villarreal is a 1985 graduate of Yale Law School, who began his
`
`distinguished career as a Seventh Circuit clerk. He has over 35 years of litigation experience, as a
`
`former partner at major national law firm Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal (now part of
`
`Dentons) and as chief of litigation for several large multinational companies for almost two
`
`decades, including the global head of litigation for GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) for approximately
`
`a decade. He has lectured about litigation, conflict resolution and diversity at multiple elite
`
`universities, including Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, NYU Stern
`
`School of Business, and Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business. At Stern, he also lectures on
`
`leadership. In 2016, the Financial Times awarded global recognition to GSK as the "Litigation
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:7601
`
`Team of the Year." Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School each published a separate
`
`case study concerning Mr. Villarreal's innovative work in early dispute resolution, and their
`
`respective faculties each taught those case studies for several years.
`
`30. Mr. Villarreal has particularly deep experience in complex litigation, including
`
`class actions, antitrust, product liability, intellectual property, and commercial litigation. He has
`
`managed a wide variety of significant antitrust and other actions involving GSK pharmaceutical
`
`products such as Asacol, Avandia, Lamictal, Namenda, and Paxil, where the claimed damages in
`
`each litigation were billions of dollars. He managed multiple leading national defense counsel,
`
`created litigation strategy, and saw that it was implemented, analyzed voluminous documents,
`
`edited memoranda of law prepared by leading law firms, led difficult negotiations to resolve the
`
`litigations, attended numerous contested proceedings in federal courts, in depositions, and took
`
`the leading role at settlement conferences on these multi-billion dollar matters.
`
`31. Mr. Villarreal has very extensive experience in resolving multi-billion dollar class
`
`actions including multi-billion antitrust class actions. His vast experience includes the following:
`
`a. In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products liability Litig., see, e.g., 484
`
`F. Supp. 3d (E.D. Pa. 2020);
`
`b. In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., see, e.g., 957 F.3d 184 (3d Cir.
`
`2020);
`
`c. In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., see, e.g., 33 I F. Supp. 3d 152
`
`(S.D.N. Y. 2018);
`
`d. In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation, see, e.g., 907 F. 3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018);
`
`e. In re Paxil Litig. in several federal and state forums.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:7602
`
`32.
`
`Robert Gilbert has known Robert Raymar for more than 45 years and was his law
`
`partner in the early 1990s. Since that time, they have collaborated on a range of complex
`
`litigation matters. Mr. Raymar, now Special Counsel for Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, has
`
`had a long and distinguished legal career. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1972,
`
`where he was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal, he became a law clerk to Judge Leonard Garth
`
`of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Third Circuit. He subsequently served as assistant legal counsel to the Governor
`
`of New Jersey, as a deputy attorney general for the State of New Jersey in the Division of
`
`Criminal Justice and as a member of the New Jersey Executive Commission on Ethical
`
`Standards. He has had over forty years' experience in private practice litigating complex
`
`commercial cases. He has been repeatedly selected as a top-rated litigation attorney by Super
`
`Lawyers.
`
`33. Mr. Raymar also has extensive experience in matters involving significant
`
`national public policy issues. He has served as a visiting lecturer at Princeton University's School
`
`of Public and International Affairs, on the Board of Trustees of the New Jersey Institute of
`
`Technology, and as a New Jersey delegate to several Democratic National Conventions. He was
`
`a member of the National Executive Committee of the Yale Law School Association and was
`
`twice president of the Yale Law School Association of New Jersey. He has been a member of the
`
`Boards of Directors of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, of One Fair Wage Action,
`
`and of the Advisory Council for the Alliance for Justice Building The Bench Initiative.
`
`34.
`
`Sarah Schuster is a Senior Associate at Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, P.C. Ms.
`
`Schuster has extensive experience as a complex commercial litigator and regulatory lawyer,
`
`representing individual and corporate clients in a wide variety of litigations and investigations.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:7603
`
`Ms. Schuster started her career at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP and later worked at a New York-
`
`based boutique litigation firm before joining Gilbert Litigators in 2022. Ms. Schuster received
`
`her J.D. from New York University School of Law and her bachelor’s degree from Brown
`
`University.
`
`35.
`
`Freedman Normand Friedland LLP is a national law firm comprised of innovative
`
`and tech-savvy attorneys with stellar credentials. With experience from some of the most
`
`prestigious litigation firms in the country, FNF’s legal team has a successful and decades-long
`
`track record of consistently achieving success in high-stakes and notable disputes on behalf of
`
`sophisticated clients. FNF’s legal team has extensive experience litigating complex commercial,
`
`securities, antitrust, class action, and derivative matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and
`
`defendants in a broad range of industries. FNF couples a unique brand of creative thinking and
`
`technical expertise with well-balanced aggressive advocacy to achieve impressive results in
`
`complex, high value, and class action matters. As the firm continues to grow, it has focused on
`
`building a diverse attorney pool with cross-functional expertise.
`
`36.
`
`Edward Normand is a founding partner of FNF. In addition to working on many
`
`of FNF’s numerous class actions, Mr. Normand represented clients in class action, securities, and
`
`antitrust matters at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP for more than two decades. For example, Mr.
`
`Normand represented Vanguard in an opt-out from the securities class action against ARCP, In
`
`re American Realty Capital Props., Inc. Litig., 1:15-mc-00040- AKH (S.D.N.Y.); represented
`
`HSBC in consolidated securities actions arising out of the sale of residential mortgage-backed
`
`securities, FHFA v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., 11cv6189, 11cv6201 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.);
`
`represented a class of employee health benefit plans in an ERISA action against Merck-Medco
`
`arising out of the defendant's management of pharmaceutical benefits, C. States Southeast v.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:7604
`
`Merck-Medco, 7:03-md- 01508 (S.D.N.Y.); represented EchoStar in connection with its efforts to
`
`obtain FCC approval under the antitrust laws to acquire DirecTV; represented ValueAct Capital
`
`against the DOJ’s allegations that the company violated the HSR Act in connection with
`
`acquisition of certain voting securities; and has written regarding the implications of the
`
`operation of the HSR Act in conjunction with the antitrust laws, the First Amendment, and Equal
`
`Protection clause, S. Gant, A. Michaelson & E. Normand, The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act’s First
`
`Amendment Problem, 103 CORNELL L. REV. 1 (2017). Mr. Normand was the Editor-in-Chief
`
`of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and served as a law clerk in both the Second
`
`Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
`
`37.
`
`Devin (Velvel) Freedman is a founding partner of FNF with substantial
`
`experience litigating complex commercial matters. He has been lead defense counsel in multiple
`
`class actions and class arbitrations. See, e.g., Joe Rudy Reyes, et al. v. JPay, Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00315-R-MRW (C.D. Cal.); Rodriguez et. al. v. JPay Inc., et. al., 2:19-cv-14137 (S.D. Fla.); In
`
`the Matter of the Arbitration Between Shalanda Houston and Cynthia Kobel, individually and on
`
`behalf of all others similarly situated and JPay, Inc, AAA Case No. 01- 15-0005-3477
`
`(American Arbitration Association); In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Oumer Salim,
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and JPay, Inc., AAA Case No. 01-15-
`
`0005-8277 (American Arbitration Association). Finally, Freedman was a 2019 recipient of the
`
`Daily Business Review’s professional excellence award as an attorney “On the Rise.”
`
`38.
`
`Eric Cramer is Chairman and an Executive Shareholder of the law firm of Berger
`
`Montague PC. He is a member in good standing of the State Bars of Pennsylvania and New
`
`York.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:7605
`
`39.
`
`Described by Chambers & Partners as a “[b]outique firm with deep expertise in
`
`complex antitrust litigation,” Berger Montague pioneered the antitrust class action and has been
`
`engaged in the practice of complex and class action litigation for more than fifty years. Since its
`
`founding by David Berger—one of the “fathers of the class action practice”—Berger Montague
`
`has been a leading national advocate for clients and class members in many of the most
`
`important complex antitrust cases ever litigated, including, serving as co-lead counsel most
`
`recently in the largest private antitrust settlement ever achieved (approximately $5.62 billion) in
`
`the Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig. (In re Payment Card),
`
`MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.), and the largest single-defendant settlement ever for a case alleging
`
`delayed generic competition in In re: Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 15-cv-
`
`7488 (S.D.N.Y.) ($750 million). The firm is headquartered in Philadelphia with offices in
`
`Chicago, Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, DC.
`
`40.
`
`Berger Montague PC is currently lead or co-lead counsel in more than two dozen
`
`of the largest and most complex antitrust class actions in courts around the country, including:
`
`a. Le v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 15-cv-1045 (D. Nev.) (co-lead counsel representing a class
`
`of mixed martial arts fighters);
`
`b. In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig., No. 21-md-3010 (S.D.N.Y.) (co-
`
`lead counsel for the class of publishers against Google);
`
`c. Fusion Elite All Stars v. Varsity Brands LLC, No. 20-cv-3390 (E.D. Pa.) (co-lead
`
`counsel for classes of gyms and spectators against an alleged monopolist in the
`
`All Star Cheer market);
`
`d. In re Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litig., No. 18-cv-1734 (E.D. Pa.) (co-lead
`counsel for class of healthcare plans who purchased pediatric rotavirus vaccines);
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:7606
`
`e. In re Geisinger Health and Evangelical Community Hospital Healthcare
`Workers Antitrust Litig., No. 21-cv-00196 (M.D. Pa.) (co-lead counsel for class
`of healthcare workers);
`f. Simon & Simon, P.C., et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 20-cv-03754 (N.D.
`Cal.) (co- lead counsel for class of dental practice purchasers of clear dental
`aligners and scanners);
`g. In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 20-md-02977 (E.D.
`Okla.) (co-lead counsel for class of chicken farmers);
`h. In re Bystolic Antitrust Litig., No. 20-cv-5735 (S.D.N.Y.) (co-lead counsel for
`class of direct purchasers of pharmaceutical products);
`In re EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litig., No. 20-cv-827 (D. Minn.) (co-lead
`counsel for class of direct purchasers of pharmaceutical products);
`In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., No. 12-cv-2389 (D.N.J.) (co-lead counsel for class
`of direct purchasers of pharmaceutical products);
`k. In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2460 (E.D. Pa.) (co-lead counsel for
`class of direct purchasers of pharmaceutical products);
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`l.
`
`In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig., No. 14-cv-10150 (N.D. Ill.) (co-lead counsel for
`class of direct purchasers of pharmaceutical products);
`m. In re Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litig., No.
`14-md- 2548 (S.D.N.Y.) (co-lead counsel for a class of sellers of gold
`investments);
`41.
`Berger Montague has won verdicts and settlements recovering over $40
`billion for clients and class members. Examples of recent successes in antitrust class actions
`include:
`
`a. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No.
`05-md- 1720 (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement of approximately $5.6 billion);
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:7607
`
`b. In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 15-cv-7488 (S.D.N.Y.)
`($750 million class settlement);
`c. King Drug Co. v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 06-cv-01797 (E.D. Pa.) ($512
`million class settlement);
`d. In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., No. 13-2437 (E.D. Pa.)
`(settlements totaling $190.7 million);
`e. In re Commodity Exchange, Inc. Gold Futures & Options Trading Litigation, No.
`14-md- 02548 (S.D.N.Y.) (settlements totaling $152 million);
`The U.S. edition of The Legal 500 has recommended Berger Montague PC as a
`
`42.
`
`“Top Tier Firm” for representing plaintiffs in antitrust class action litigation and describes the
`
`firm as “excellent,” “easy to deal with,” and “noted for the depth of its team.” The Firm has also
`
`appeared on The National Law Journal’s “Hot List” of the Top Plaintiffs’ Law Firms in the
`
`United States in twelve of the last fifteen years the list was compiled (from 2003–2017).
`
`Beginning in 2018 and each year thereafter, The National Law Journal and Law.com have
`
`included Berger Montague PC in its list of “Elite Trial Lawyers,” recognizing law firms that
`
`“have done exemplary and cutting-edge work on behalf of their clients and are established
`
`leaders in the area of plaintiff law.” Id. Similarly, Chambers & Partners has repeatedly named
`
`the Firm a leading, “Band 1” national antitrust law firm for multiple years running. Berger
`
`Montague has served as lead or co-lead counsel in myriad antitrust cases representing plaintiff
`
`classes alleging price fixing, vertical trade restraints, monopolization, and other anticompetitive
`
`conduct in diverse markets.
`
`43. Managing this case on a day-to-day basis for Berger Montague have been Eric
`
`Cramer, Robert Litan, Daniel Walker, Ellen Noteware, and Hope Brinn.
`
`44.
`
`Eric Cramer is Chairman of Berger Montague and is also Co-Chair of the Firm’s
`
`antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-00125 Document #: 428-2 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:7608
`
`antitrust. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the
`
`country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements
`
`for his clients totaling well over $3 billion. Most recently, he has focused on representing
`
`workers claiming that anticompetitive practices have suppressed their pay, including cases on
`
`behalf of mixed-martial-arts fighters, luxury retail and healthcare workers, and chicken growers.
`
`Last year he served as one of the main trial counsel in a two-week jury trial in In re Capacitors
`
`Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in a $160 million class settlement just before closing
`
`arguments.
`
`45.
`
`In 2020, Law360 named Cramer a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar, and Who’s Who
`
`Legal identified him as a G