Insulin Action - 2017-04-28 - Hagens Berman Leadership Application

Case 3:17-cv-00699-BRM-LHG Document 49 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 525
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

COUNSELLORS AT LAW
_____________
CHARLES C. CARELLA JAMES T. BYERS FRANCIS C. HAND RAYMOND J. LILLIE

5 BECKER FARM ROAD
BRENDAN T. BYRNE DONALD F. MICELI AVRAM S. EULE WILLIAM SQUIRE
ROSELAND, N.J. 07068 -1739 CHRISTOPHER H. WESTRICK*
PETER G. STEWART A. RICHARD ROSS STEPHEN R. DANEK
JAN ALAN BRODY CARL R. WOODWARD, III
PHONE (973) 994-1700 ______ DONALD A. ECKLUND
JOHN M. AGNELLO MELISSA E. FLAX FAX (973) 994-1744 OF COUNSEL MEGAN A. NATALE
CHARLES M. CARELLA DAVID G. GILFILLAN www.carellabyrne.com ZACHARY S. BOWER+
*CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
JAMES E. CECCHI G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD NEW JERSEY AS A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL CROSS
BRIAN H. FENLON CHRISTOPHER J. BUGGY
JAMES D. CECCHI (1933-1995) LINDSEY H. TAYLOR JOHN V. KELLY III
JOHN G. GILFILLAN III (1936-2008) CAROLINE F. BARTLETT MICHAEL A. INNES
ELLIOT M. OLSTEIN (1939-2014) +MEMBER FL BAR ONLY
April 28, 2017
VIA ECF
The Honorable Brian R. Martinotti

United States District Judge
Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
402 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
Re: In re Insulin Pricing Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG)

Barnett, et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-1580(BRM)(LHG)
Boss, et al. v. CVS Health Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01823(BRM)(LHG)
Christensen, et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02678(BRM)(LHG)
Dear Judge Martinotti:
This firm, along with our co-counsel, represents Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing
Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG). Pursuant to the parties joint report, which was
submitted in accordance with Judge Goodmans text order of April 10, 2017 (Dckt. No. 45),
enclosed please find a joint application supporting appointment of Steve W. Berman and myself
as interim co-lead counsel for the putative consumer class pursuant to Rule 23(g). Since this is a
joint application on behalf of two applicants, it is formatted as a double-spaced brief rather than a
single-spaced letter and is 19 pages.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If the Court has any questions, we are
available at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
/s/ James E. Cecchi
JAMES E. CECCHI
cc: Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. (via ECF)

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

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In re INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00699(BRM)(LHG)
This filing applies to: Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti
Barnett, et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., No. Hon. Magistrate Judge Lois M. Goodman
3:17-cv-01580 (D.N.J.); Boss, et al. v. CVS
Health Corp. et al., No. 3:17-cv-01823
(D.N.J.); Christensen, et al. v. Novo Nordisk
Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02678 (D.N.J.)
JOINT APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

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

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

Litigation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... i
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................2
III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
1. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrnes relevant experience is unparalleled. ........................ 4
a. Hagens Berman ....................................................................................................... 5
(1) PHARMACEUTICAL CLASS ACTIONS ............................................................ 6
(2) OTHER NOTABLE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ............................................. 7
(3) CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW

JERSEY .................................................................................................................. 8
b. Carella Byrne .......................................................................................................... 9
2. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne undertook substantial investigation and

analysis of the underlying claims prior to filing this action...............................................12
3. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have substantial knowledge of the applicable law. .. 13
4. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will devote all resources necessary to this action..... 14
5. Other factors demonstrate counsels fitness to serve as interim co-lead counsel. ............ 16
a. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will ensure that any recovery reaches the class
................................................................................................................... 16
b. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have built strong plaintiff relationships........ 16
IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................18
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Galicki v. New Jersey,

No. 14-cv-00169, 2014 WL 4979499 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014) .....................................................4
Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc.,

207 F. Supp. 3d 417 (D.N.J. 2016) ............................................................................................4
Santos v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC,

No. 2:15-cv-00864, 2017 WL 215969 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2017)...................................................4
Sheinberg v. Sorensen,
606 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................4
In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litig.,

MDL No. 2455 (N.D. Ill.) (Mem. Order dated October 11, 2013) ............................................9
Waudby v. Verizon Wireless Services, Inc.,

248 F.R.D. 173 (D.N.J. 2008) ................................................................................................3, 4
Statutes
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ..................................................................................11
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ...................................................2, 11, 12, 13
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) .............................................................................................................. passim
- ii -
I. INTRODUCTION
This Court has extraordinary power and discretion under Rule 23(g). In cases like this
one, involving price gauging and collusion in the market for life-saving drugs, the Courts
decision will have far reaching consequences, for better or worse. This matter holds significant
public policy implications beyond the narrow interests of the respective lawyers. Each of the law
firms seeking to lead this case is capable and distinguished in many ways. But not every law
firm can lead this case. And not every law firmirrespective of their talents in any particular
practice areashould lead a national class action in the complex field of pharmaceutical pricing.
Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne submit that in this specialized area they are uniquely qualified
to represent the class of injured insulin consumers. In addition to their past experience, these
firms alone pioneered this case, developing the theories and claims that underlie each of the
complaints before the Court. These twin factorsexperience and originationtip the scales
decidedly and overwhelmingly in their favor.
Hagens Berman served as lead counsel in one of the most important drug pricing class
actions tried in the past decade. That case, In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.) (Average Wholesale Pricing), bears many
similarities to the present suit. The baseline of knowledge and experience Hagens Berman
gained in litigating Average Wholesale Pricing (as well as the numerous Average Wholesale
Pricing cases that followed) cannot be underestimated in terms of its value to the present
putative class of insulin consumers. None of the other firms before the Court has a comparable
depth of expertise in the area of pharmaceutical pricing. It is also beyond question that Hagens
Berman and Carella Byrne originated this case after conducting a proprietary investigation.
These firms made significant investments to acquire the data and expert analysis necessary to
-1-
piece together the gross collusion and price gauging at the heart of this conspiracydata and
research that the other applicants have simply copied in their own complaints. And it is not
surprising that Hagens Berman was the first to investigate this racket and take action: Hagens
Bermans experience litigating Average Wholesale Pricing gave the firm, together with Carella
Byrne, the insight they needed to investigate this case, to invest the resources necessary, and to
file first, paving the way for each complaint that followed. Put simply, Hagens Berman and
Carella Byrne view this case as a proprietary one and Rule 23(g) supports their appointment as
lead as the lawsuits originators. Indeed, it would be a disincentive for lawyers to investigate and
develop important cases if others could take over with follow-complaints that add nothing of
great moment to the work of the first filer.
Finally, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have spent months cultivating close
relationships with the vast majority of named plaintiffs as well as supportive advocacy groups.
As a result, we are in the best position to serve their interests. When viewed as a whole, Hagens
Berman and Carella Byrne respectfully submit that their past work in the pharmaceutical filed,
their original investigation in bringing this important lawsuit, and their commitment to seeing it
through to a successful conclusion demonstrate that their application should be granted under
Rule 23(g).
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
In re Insulin Pricing Litigation and the related cases allege that Sanofi, Novo Nordisk,
and Eli Lilly have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. 1961-1968, and various state consumer protection laws. The defendants have done so
by unlawfully manipulating the benchmark prices of their rapid- and long-acting analog insulin
drugs for the benefit of the three largest Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)CVS Health,
-2-
Express Scripts, and Optum Rx. More specifically, the defendant insulin makers publicly publish
one pricethe benchmark pricewhile secretly offering a much lower pricethe real priceto
the largest PBMs in exchange for favorable formulary status. This practice has enabled the drug
makers to secure the big PBMs business without significantly reducing their real prices. But the
scheme has a victim: patients who must pay for significant portions of their drugs out-of-pocket
based on benchmark prices. Defendants benchmark-price arms race has forced people living
with diabetes into an unconscionable Catch-22: the very medicine keeping them alive renders
their lives unaffordable.
After an extensive investigation, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne filed the proposed
putative class action on behalf of such injured patient-consumers in the District of New Jersey on
February 2, 2017. Shortly thereafter, on March 8 and March 17, 2017, two copycat actions were
filed virtually duplicating the factual and legal allegations in the original Hagens Berman and
Carella Byrne complaint. The only meaningful difference is these follow-on complaints named
the PBMs as defendants.
III. ARGUMENT
Rule 23(g)(3) provides that [t]he court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of
the putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action. 1
Designation of interim counsel is appropriate if necessary to protect the interests of the putative
class.2 When selecting interim class counsel, courts apply the factors set forth in Rule 23(g),3
examining:
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3).
2
Courts selecting interim class counsel apply the same standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) for the
appointment of counsel for a certified class. See Waudby v. Verizon Wireless Services, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 173, 175-76
(D.N.J. 2008).
-3-
(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating

potential claims in the action;
(ii) counsels experience in handling class actions, other complex

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii) counsels knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the

class.4
Additionally, the courts may consider any other matter pertinent to counsels ability to fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the class.5 These factors strongly support appointment
of Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne.
1. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrnes relevant experience is unparalleled.
Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have exceptional experience handling complex civil
litigation and consumer class-action lawsuits.6 In the specialized field of drug pricing litigation,
the expertise of proposed interim co-lead counsel is unparalleled. These firms regularly bring
class action lawsuits to trial,7 including the single most germane pharmaceutical class actionIn
re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.).
3
See Waudby, 248 F.R.D. at 175-76.
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A); see Sheinberg v. Sorensen, 606 F.3d 130, 133 n.1 (3d Cir. 2010); Rivet v. Office
Depot, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 3d 417, 432 (D.N.J. 2016); Galicki v. New Jersey, No. 14-cv-00169, 2014 WL 4979499, at
*1 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014); Waudby, 248 F.R.D. at 175-76.
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B); see Sheinberg, 606 F.3d at 133 n.1 (quoting this language); Santos v. Carrington
Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00864, 2017 WL 215969, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2017).
6
Hagens Berman and Mr. Bermans rsums are available at:
http://www.hbsscreative.com/firm_resume/Hagens_Berman_Firm_Resume.pdf. Carella Byrne and Mr. Cecchis
rsums are available upon the Courts request.
7
Class action cases that Hagens Berman has tried include: In re Neurontin Marketing & Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1629 (D. Mass.); Williams v. The Boeing Co., No. 98-cv-761 P (W.D. Wash.); In re Burlington
Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. Employee Settlement Agreements Litigation (W.D. Wash.); In re Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, MDL No. 1456, No. 01-12257 (D. Mass.), and Kucera v. The
State of Washington Department of Transportation & Washington State Ferries, No. 99-2-01161-1 (Wash. King
Cty. Super. Ct.).
-4-
Members of these two firms, including the attorneys described below, have worked
collaboratively in the past and welcome the opportunity to do so here.
a. Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is uniquely qualified to serve as interim co-lead counsel. The firm not
only litigates complex class actions throughout the country and in this District, but also has been
appointed lead or co-lead counsel in some of the largest drug pricing, consumer fraud, product
liability, securities, and antitrust class actions in history. Indeed, Hagens Berman has led the
fight for more affordable prescription drugs and a more responsible pharmaceutical industry for
over a decade. Hagens Berman has represented consumers, for-profit and not-for-profit health
insurers, consumer organizations, state attorneys general, and drug wholesalers and retailers.
Hagens Berman is also counsel to the Prescription Access Litigation project, a leading drug
pricing organization that fights for access to more affordable prescription drugs through
enforcement of existing federal and state laws. In recent years, Hagens Bermans aggressive
prosecution of pharmaceutical industry misconduct has yielded more than a billion dollars in
gross settlement funds.
Hagens Berman has been consistently recognized for this work. The National Law
Journal named Hagens Berman to its Plaintiffs Hot List in 2006, 2007, and each of the years
2009 to 2014. In 2014, the National Law Journal named also Hagens Berman to its inaugural list
of Americans Elite Trial Lawyersa compilation of the nations leading firms bringing about
significant change and major plaintiffs settlements through complex litigation. The firm is
particularly skilled at managing multi-state and nationwide class actions through a coordinated
approach that implements an efficient and aggressive prosecutorial strategy. Below are a few
examples of the firms track recordboth in pharmaceutical field and beyond.
-5-
(1) Pharmaceutical Class Actions
In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price

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

class Average Wholesale Price case, Hagens Berman represented
six states in their successful efforts to recover state Medicaid
damages.
New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First

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

Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, 582 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2009). On
September 3, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the settlement
-6-
between plaintiff health benefit plans and consumers and

defendants First DataBank and Medi-Span, two leading drug
pricing publishers. This win cemented the rollback in the
benchmark prices achieved in New England Carpenters. Steve
Berman argued this case to the First Circuit. Hagens Berman also
received $75 million for a governmental entities class and
substantial recoveries for seven states based.
In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., MDL No. 2419

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

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

Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2151
(S.D. Cal.) (Toyota). Steve Berman served as co-lead counsel for
the economic loss classes in this MDL, alleging that a defect
caused vehicles to undergo sudden, unintended acceleration. The
resulting settlement was valued at over $1.6 billion and included:
$500 million in cash payments to class members, many of whom
received checks for thousands of dollars; installation of a safety-
enhancing brake override system on numerous vehicle models; and
a program that substantially extended warranties. Hagens Berman
has also been appointed lead and co-lead in other high profile
-7-
vehicle cases, including In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel

Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.) (member of plaintiffs Steering
Committee) and In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch
Litigation, MDL No. 2543 (S.D.N.Y.) (GM Ignition Switch).
Steve Berman is the only lawyer in the country appointed to co-
lead the economic loss cases in the two largest automobile defect
lawsuits in the United StatesToyota and GM. In each case, the
initial appointment was made sua sponte, highlighting Hagens
Bermans reputation and proven abilities.
In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-md-2293

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

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

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

(D.N.J.). Hagens Berman serves as co-lead counsel in this action
against drug manufacturer Wyeth and generic manufacturer Teva.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants delayed market entry of generic
versions of Effexor XR.
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2332 (D.N.J.). Hagens

Berman serves as co-lead counsel in this action alleging Pfizer
delayed the market entry of generic versions of the cholesterol
drug Lipitor.
Hagens Berman has committed its top attorney, Steve W. Berman, to this proposed class
action. Mr. Berman is the founder and managing partner of Hagens Berman and has served as
lead or co-lead counsel in antitrust, securities, consumer, product liability, and employment class
-8-
actions and complex litigation throughout the country. Appointing Mr. Berman in a recent
MDL, Judge Shadur of the Northern District of Illinois remarked:
But it must be said that the track record of Hagens Berman and its
lead partner Steve Berman is even more impressive, having racked
up such accomplishments as a $1.6 billion settlement in the Toyota
Unintended Acceleration Litigation and a substantial number of
really outstanding big-ticket results. It may be worth mentioning
that to this Courts recollection, it has had no first-hand judicial
experience with either of the two finalist firms[,] . . . [b]ut that is
not true of its colleagues in this District of more recent vintage, an
email inquiry to whom brought in return some high praise of
attorney Bermans skills.8
Perhaps most notable is Mr. Bermans role as a Special Assistant Attorney General for
the states of Illinois, Washington, Arizona, Indiana, New York, Alaska, Idaho, Ohio, Oregon,
Nevada, Montana, Vermont, and Rhode Island in the landmark tobacco litigation. That case
resulted in the largest settlement in history, a settlement that occurred while Mr. Berman was
trying Washington v. Philip Morris.
b. Carella Byrne
Carella Byrnes depth of experience in a broad range of practice areas is also well-
recognized. Carella Byrne has an experienced team of attorneys and support staff who are
dedicated to representing individuals, businesses, and public and private pension funds that have
suffered from corporate fraud and wrongdoing. Carella Byrne and its attorneys also have a
proven leadership record in multi-district and class action lawsuits, serving as lead, co-lead,
committee member, and liaison counsel in securities actions, mass-torts, consumer class actions
and antitrust cases. For example:
In re Merck & Co., Inc. Sec., Derivative and ERISA Litigation,

MDL No. 1658 (D.N.J.). James Cecchi was appointed liaison
8
In re Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litig., MDL No. 2455 (N.D. Ill.) (Mem. Order dated October 11,
2013) (Dkt. No. 56) (footnotes omitted).
-9-
counsel in this suit that recovered $1.06 billion for investors, the
second largest securities recovery in the Districts history.
In re Merck & Co., Vytorin ERISA Litigation, MDL No. (D.N.J.).

James Cecchi served as co-lead counsel in a nationwide case
alleging that Mercks sale and marketing of the prescription drugs
Zetia and Vytorin was fraudulent. The case was settled for $42.5
million.
In re Merck & Co. Enhance Securities Class Action Litigation,

Civil Action No. 08-cv-02177 (D.N.J.). After initiating this
lawsuit, James Cecchi served as liaison counsel in two securities
class actions brought against Merck and Schering-Plough
regarding the drugs Vytorin and Zetia and the results of the
ENHANCE study. In 2013, both cases settled. The Merck
defendants paid $215 million to resolve the action, and the
Schering-Plough defendants paid $473 million.
In re Effexor Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-cv-05479

(D.N.J.). James Cecchi serves as Chair of the Indirect Steering
Committee in this action against drug manufacturer Wyeth and
generic manufacturer Teva. Plaintiffs allege that defendants
delayed market entry of generic versions of Effexor XR.
Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Civil Action No. 11-cv-07178

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

Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Ca.). The
court appointed James Cecchi to the plaintiffs steering committee
in this multi-district litigation that recovered settlements valued at
more than $15 billion, a record in consumer class actions.
Pro v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, Civil Action No. 06-

cv-03830 (D.N.J.). The Court appointed James Cecchi as co-lead
class counsel in this action that made more than $143 million
available to eligible class members.
- 10 -
In re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2599

(S.D. Fla.). The court appointed James Cecchi to a three-member
plaintiffs steering committee in this case arising from the largest
vehicle recall in United States history.
In re Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2687

(D.N.J.). The Court appointed James Cecchi as sole lead counsel
for plaintiffs in a multi-billion-dollar antitrust action alleging a
nationwide conspiracy in the liquid aluminum sulfate market.
Carella Byrnes experience prosecuting class cases in the District of New Jersey over the
past decade is unrivaled. For example in In re Merck & Co. Enhance Securities Class Action
Litigation and In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 07-cv-00397 (D.N.J.), the firm served as court-appointed liaison counsel and recovered $688
million for investors. Indeed, Carella Byrne has been appointed lead counsel in many of the
largest class cases litigated in the District of New Jersey over the past ten years. These include
dozens of consumer class actions against the pharmaceutical, automotive, and
telecommunications industries where Carella Byrne has served as lead or co-lead counsel.
Like Hagens Berman, Carella Byrne has dedicated its top class action litigator, James
Cecchi, to this matter. With over twenty-five years of experience, Mr. Cecchi has successfully
handled numerous significant cases on behalf of institutional and individual clients throughout
the United States. Furthermore, Mr. Cecchi currently helps lead numerous class actions
involving healthcare industry defendants. Some notable examples include: In re AETNA, Inc.,
Out-of-Network UCR Rates Litigation, MDL No. 2020 (D.N.J.) (appointed settlement counsel
in a case alleging ERISA and RICO claims arising from nationwide underpayment of out-of-
network benefits); In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2750
(D.N.J.) (appointed liaison counsel in complex pharmaceutical products liability litigation); In re
Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243 (same).
- 11 -
Additionally, over the course of his career, Mr. Cecchi has collected extensive experience
prosecuting RICO claims beginning with his service as an Assistant United States Attorney in
the State of New Jersey. Just last year, Mr. Cecchi was appointed co-lead counsel in a multi-
billion-dollar class case: In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Third-Party Payor
Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-03087 (D.N.J.). This class action alleges RICO violations
arising from drug-maker Valeants use of a secret network of captive pharmacies to fraudulently
inflate the prices of the drug companys products to the detriment of third-party payers.
2. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne undertook substantial investigation and

analysis of the underlying claims prior to filing this action.
On February 2, 2017, proposed interim co-lead counsel filed In re Insulin in the District
of New Jersey.9 This filing was the culmination of nearly a year-long factual investigation. After
a number of periodicals spotlighted the rising insulin prices last spring, our firms began to
research the issue. We soon realized that the industry dynamics at play in Average Wholesale
Pricing and New England Carpenterscases which Hagens Berman ledmight also be driving
the rising cost of insulin. To further investigate this problem, Hagens Berman purchased private
financial analyses of the pharmaceutical industry, consulted economists regarding trends in the
health insurance marketplace, and acquired proprietary drug pricing data. Alongside this
research, Hagens Berman began to consult regularly with insulin patient advocacy groups,
endocrinologists, and other public health activists regarding this issue. These patient allies
introduced the firm to many of the plaintiffs whose stories we shared in our original complaint.
Over the course of the last few months, we have developed strong relationships with these
plaintiffs, regularly speaking over the phone to answer questions and discuss the case.
9
This action was initially filed in the District of Massachusetts. It was voluntary withdrawn from that district
and re-filed in the District of New Jersey because a related investor suit had already been filed in this district.
- 12 -
Proposed interim co-lead counsel took equal care in drafting the legal claims set forth in
their complaint. After analyzing a broad range of legal claims, they included only the most
viable. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne believe the interests of the class are best served not
by positing every legal claim imaginable against every possible defendant, but rather by
judiciously presenting only the most cogent. In crafting their legal theory, Hagens Berman drew
on its experience litigating Average Wholesale Price and New England Carpenters. Ultimately,
the two firms decided not to name the Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) as defendants. If
appointed co-lead counsel, it is our intention to divide the case into two closely coordinated
tracksthe drug manufacturer track and the PBM track. The firm of Keller Rohrback will direct
the PBM track, while Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne direct the manufacturer track. This
division will ultimately serve the interests of the class by allowing for the coordinated and
efficient prosecution of all cases before the Court. Furthermore, this approach has been followed
before. Indeed, Hagens Berman did not name the PBMs in New England Carpenters. This
streamlined approach worked there, and we believe it will work just as well here.
3. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have substantial knowledge of the

applicable law.
Proposed interim co-lead counsel has successfully prosecuted many powerful
corporations for their violations of RICO and state consumer protection laws. Moreover, Hagens
Berman and Carella Byrne have unparalleled experience in drug pricing class actions. Both
firms have established relationships with the top experts in the pharmaceutical and drug pricing
field, including health care economists and ex-industry representatives. Proposed interim
counsel has also worked with a wide variety of damages experts to ensure that damage models
meet the theory of liability pursued. Finally, the two firms have class certification expertise that
- 13 -
will be critical to this case: Hagens Berman is one of the few firms in the country to have
successfully litigated multi-state class certification motions.10
4. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will devote all resources necessary to this
action.
Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are ready to commit the substantial resources
necessary to litigate a case of this magnitude. The firms suggest that two points animate this
factor: commitment of firm resources and senior partners to the case and a willingness to take the
case to trial and settle only if consumers obtain real relief. Proposed interim co-lead counsel rate
highly on both metrics.
First, both firms track records of taking on powerful corporationsincluding major
pharmaceutical, tobacco, consumer goods, and banking interestsdemonstrate that each firm
commits their full power to prosecute claims in the best interests of the plaintiffs and proposed
class. This past work also demonstrates that the firms have the ability to fund substantial costs
accruing over many years of litigation and trial. Proposed interim co-lead counsel are fully
aware that this case will likely require plaintiffs counsel to expend millions of dollars in
expenses and attorney time to oppose the very substantial law firms and corporations arrayed
against them. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne stand ready to commit these resources to this
action.
Furthermore, both firms have dedicated eminent litigators to this matter. Both Mr.
Berman and Mr. Cecchi will personally dedicate whatever time is necessary to successfully
10
Class action cases that Hagens Berman has tried include: In re Neurontin Marketing & Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1629 (D. Mass.); Williams v. The Boeing Co., No. 98-cv-761 P (W.D. Wash.); In re Burlington
Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. Employee Settlement Agreements Litigation (W.D. Wash.); In re Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation, MDL No. 1456, No. 01-12257 (D. Mass.), and Kucera v. The
State of Washington Department of Transportation & Washington State Ferries, No. 99-2-01161-1 (Wash. King
Cty. Super. Ct.).
- 14 -
manage and prosecute the cause, and both expect to devote a substantial amount of their time to
this matter. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne also have the roster of talented attorneys and
capable staff necessary to deal with the substantial amount of discovery, motion practice, and
trial work that this action will require.
Additionally, proposed interim co-lead counsels nationwide offices will benefit the
putative class. Even though this litigation will proceed in New Jersey, the plaintiffs and
defendants are located across the United States. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrnes amended
complaint set forth claims on behalf of thirty-nine plaintiffs from nineteen different states.11
Since filing this amended complaint, twelve additional plaintiffs have retained Hagens Berman
to represent them in this suit, representing an additional seven states.12 Hagens Berman has a
national practice with offices in San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C.,
Chicago, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Colorado Springs. Carella Byrne holds office in Roseland,
New Jersey and litigates cases nationwide. Appointing counsel with a strong presence
throughout the country will ensure robust representation of plaintiffs nationwide.
Finally, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are fully prepared to and capable of
committing the type of resources necessary to take this matter to trial. The attorneys at both
firms are trial lawyers, including former Assistant United States Attorneys, Assistant State
Attorneys General, and local prosecutors. Both firms have the resolve necessary to take complex
class actions to trial, should that be in the best interests of the plaintiffs and putative class.
11
The states are: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
12
The additional states are: Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
- 15 -
5. Other factors demonstrate counsels fitness to serve as interim co-lead

counsel.
Rule 23(g)(1)(B) encourages the Court to consider any other matter pertinent to
counsels ability to fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class, and we suggest that
two additional factors be should be considered.
a. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will ensure any recovery reaches
the class.
First, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne will ensure that real value is provided to the
class. This is especially true in the event of settlement. For example, in In re Charles Schwab
Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-01510 (N.D. Cal.), Hagens Berman negotiated a
settlement for the California class that recovered about 82% of damages with average check
amounts of approximately $1,564, and a settlement for the federal class that recovered
approximately 44% of damages with an average payout to class members of about $881. In
Toyota, vehicle registration data was used to identify and mail checks to class members. Class
members were then provided the opportunity to obtain enhanced recoveries by filing claim forms
containing certain information not reflected in the registration data.
b. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne have built strong plaintiff

relationships.
Finally, Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are committed to building strong relationships
to the putative class to ensure that the plaintiffs are heard and best represented. Indeed, these
firms have already begun this process. Proposed interim co-lead counsel has set up a plaintiff
portal, where potential plaintiffs can inquire with the firm about the lawsuit. So far, we have
received over 1,300 inquiries, and we strive to respond to inquiries within a week. Furthermore,
over the last few months, proposed interim co-lead counsel has cultivated close relationships
- 16 -
with many of the named plaintiffs. For these reason Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne are in
the best position to represent the interests of this proposed class.
- 17 -
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court appoint Hagens
Berman and Carella Byrne as interim co-lead counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
DATED: April 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,

BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
By /s/ James E. Cecchi

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

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
Thomas M. Sobol (admitted pro hac vice)

Hannah W. Brennan (admitted pro hac vice)
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
tom@hbsslaw.com
hannahb@hbsslaw.com
Roberta D. Liebenberg
Adam J. Pessin
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
- 18 -
rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
apessin@finekaplan.com
Craig L. Briskin
MEHRI & SKALET, P.L.L.C.
1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
cbriskin@findjustice.com
Linda P. Nussbaum
Bradley J. Demuth
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Telephone: (917) 438-9102
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
Michael E. Criden
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, Florida 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
mcriden@Cridenlove.com
Jayne A. Goldstein
Natalie Finkelman Bennett
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER &
SHAH, LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515-0123
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing

Litigation
- 19 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James E. Cecchi, certify that, on this date, the foregoing document was served by filing
it on the courts CM/ECF system and additionally via electronic mail to all counsel of record.
Dated: April 28, 2017 /s/ James E. Cecchi

James E. Cecchi
- 20 -

Insulin Action - 2017-04-28 - Hagens Berman Leadership Application

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Insulin Action - 2017-04-28 - Hagens Berman Leadership Application

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

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

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

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

April 28, 2017

The Honorable Brian R. Martinotti

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

Dear Judge Martinotti:

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

/s/ James E. Cecchi

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

In re INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION

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

JOINT APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in In re Insulin Pricing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW

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

2. Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne undertook substantial investigation and

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

Galicki v. New Jersey,

Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc.,

Santos v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC,

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

Waudby v. Verizon Wireless Services, Inc.,

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

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

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

decidedly and overwhelmingly in their favor.

great moment to the work of the first filer.

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

their lives unaffordable.

the PBMs as defendants.

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

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

(iii) counsels knowledge of the applicable law; and

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

of Hagens Berman and Carella Byrne.

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

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

gross settlement funds.

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

(1) Pharmaceutical Class Actions

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price

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

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

National Association of Chain Drug Stores v. New England

between plaintiff health benefit plans and consumers and

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

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

(2) Other Notable Class Action Lawsuits

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing,

vehicle cases, including In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel

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

Attorney General Tobacco Litigation. In this historic litigation

(3) Current Pharmaceutical Litigation in the District of New

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