1

Aside from the litigation stemming from these hip systems, various health regulatory agencies have launched investigations to determine whether metal-on-metal hip replacements are safe.

In the wake of the August 2010 DePuy ASR hip im-plant recall, a multitude of advisories have been is-sued. Recent warnings include:

February 2012: Brit-ish Medical Journal advises that patients should be monitored annually for signs of metallosis, or metal poisoning, for as long as they have a metal hip implant.

March 2012: Study published in The Lan-cet medical journal

concludes that metal-on-metal hips should not be used at all due to serious issues with the safety of the im-plants.

May 9, 2012: Health Canada, the Canadian national health regula-tory agency, issues a warning that patients should be aware of metal hip replacement problems and adverse effects.

June 27-28, 2012: Prompted by mounting evidence, an advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administra-tion (“FDA”) convenes a two-day hearing to address safety concerns over metal-on-metal hip replacement devic-es.

A Nationwide Law Practice

CONSUMER INJURY LAWYERS

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, issued a worldwide recall of its metal-on-metal ASR hip implant devices. The recall has proven to be the impetus for a wave of law-suits, medical studies on the safety of metal-on-metal hip implants and investigations launched by domestic and foreign regu-latory bodies.

Over the past two years, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against DePuy over the recalled ASR im-plants and certain metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip sys-tems. In addition, other hip implant manufacturers are also defending thou-sands of lawsuits filed by individuals experiencing similar complications and injuries.

DECEMBER 2012 NEWSLETTER

IN THIS ISSUE :

METAL-ON-METAL HIP REPLACEMENT UPDATE

1

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

2

EMERGING AND ONGOING CASES

4

ATTORNEY ACCOLADES

7

BERNSTEIN L IEBHARD LLP IN THE NEWS

8

METAL-ON-METAL H IP IMPLANT FAILURES :

A YEAR IN REVIEW

Bernstein Liebhard LLP

10 East 40th Street

New York, NY 10016

Tel: 212 779 1414

Fax: 212 779 3218

2

30, 2012 Master Case List entered by the court, more than 3,000 cases are pend-ing in the Pinnacle hip multi-district litigation.

Firm partner Jeffrey S. Grand serves on the Plain-tiffs’ Steering Committee and the Discovery Commit-tee. The Firm is actively filing cases on behalf of its clients in this action.

Federal lawsuits over DePuy’s Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement sys-tem in In re: DePuy Orthopae-dics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2244”) continue to move forward.

On August 14, 2012, the Honorable James E. Kinkeade issued a Case Management Order setting

forth deadlines for pretrial matters so that the first bell-wether case will be ready for trial by September 1, 2014.

The federal DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement litigation is currently underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

According to a November

DEPUY P INNACLE H IP

STRYKER REJUVENATE AND ABG II MODULAR-

NECK STEM L ITIGATION

On July 6, 2012, medi-cal device manufacturer Stryker Orthopedics announced a voluntary hip recall of two com-ponents used in its arti-ficial hip implants – the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck stems.

Approximately 20,000 devices were sold in the United States prior to the recall. The company issued the recall after post-market surveillance data revealed that the modular-neck stems may cause fret-ting and corrosion, which can cause adverse local tis-sue reactions manifesting

with pain, swelling, inflam-mation, infection, and po-tentially metallosis.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration re-ceived more than 60 ad-verse event reports associ-

ated with the Rejuvenate neck stem.

The first lawsuit against Stryker Orthopaedics was filed in New Jer-sey Superior Court, Bergen County on Au-gust 8, 2012. The plaintiff alleges

that the Rejuvenate modular-neck stem shed metal debris into her blood-stream. As a result, the plaintiff suffered metal ion poisoning, forcing her to undergo revision sur-gery.

The Stryker lawsuit also al-leges that the plaintiff devel-oped complications such as pseudotumors, bone necro-sis, and soft tissue problems due to metallosis.

Lawsuits continue to be filed against the company. It is expected that cases filed in New Jersey Superior Courts will be consolidated in a sin-gle proceeding and designat-ed as a Multicounty Litiga-tion.

DEPUY ASR HIP LITIGATION

The Firm continues to actively file cases in In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products Liabil-ity Litigation (“MDL No. 2197”), currently under-way in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

More than 6,000 cases have been filed in this con-

solidated litigation. Approx-imately 2,000 additional DePuy ASR hip recall law-suits have been filed in state courts nationwide.

The first federal DePuy ASR hip recall lawsuit trial is scheduled to begin on May 6, 2013 with a second trial set for July 8, 2013.

In order to ensure that these initial hip trials go forward as scheduled, the Honorable David A. Katz issued a series of discovery deadlines. DePuy Orthopaedics has produced more than 37 mil-lion pages of documents in the discovery process. Doz-ens of company executives and other important witness-

es have been disposed.

DePuy has said it has spent $800 million on the ASR hip recall, though it hasn’t esti-mated product liability costs. Legal experts interviewed by Bloomberg said it could cost the company as much as $2 billion to resolve all litigation over recalled ASR hips.

OTHER METAL HIP

REPLACEMENT

DEVELOPMENTS

SMITH & NEPHEW

On June 1, 2012, Smith & Nephew, a British company manufacturing artificial hip systems, recalled the optional metal liner component of its R3 Acetabular System.

The global medical technology company initiated the recall of the metal hip replacement component due to a high inci-dence of complications associ-ated with the device.

An estimated 7,700 individuals have been affected by the Smith & Nephew hip recall. According to the company, the majority of the recalled metal liners were used in stemmed total hip replacements.

3

WRIGHT CONSERVE AND PROFEMUR H IP L ITIGATION

Wright Medical Technology

is facing a growing number

of lawsuits over its Con-

serve and Profemur hip

replacement systems.

Federally filed claims in-

volving Wright’s metal-on-

metal Conserve hip replace-

ment system continue to

move forward in U.S. Dis-

trict Court, Northern Dis-

trict of Georgia. (In re:

Wright Medical Technology,

Inc., Conserve Hip Implant

Products Liability Litigation -

MDL No. 2329). Lawsuits

pending in the litigation

focus on the metal-on-metal

design of the Conserve hip

products and the alleged

propensity of the devices to

generate high levels of met-

al debris, cause metallosis in

the surrounding tissue and/

or fail early.

Lawsuits involving Wright’s

Profemur hip implants,

which include metal hip

stems and total hip replace-

ment systems, allege that

design defects can cause the

neck stem to break, frac-

ture, fret or corrode, result-

ing in premature failure.

The Profemur hip compo-

nents are similar in some re-

spects to Stryker’s recalled

Rejuvenate and ABG II modu-

lar-neck hip stems. In August

2012, Wight conceded in a

filing with the U.S. Securities

and Exchange Commission

that there was a possibility

that the Stryker recall might

impact sales of its Profemur

products.

Recently, the federal judge

overseeing the Wright Con-

serve hip litigation ordered

the company to produce cer-

tain documents pertaining to

the Profemur hip neck stems

after Plaintiffs argued that the

component was an integral

part of the Conserve’s alleg-

edly flawed design. Plaintiffs

allege the modular neck junc-

tion common to both the

Conserve and Profemur de-

vices has the potential to cor-

rode, which can lead to metal

ion poisoning in its recipi-

ents.

cal Systems and Boston Scientific vagi-nal mesh prod-ucts. He also serves on mul-tiple plaintiff subcommittees that are coor-dinating the discovery and trial of these cases.

The first trial in the New Jersey state litigation is ex-pected to begin in January 2013. Trial of the initial fed-eral bellwether case is sched-uled to begin on May 2013 against C.R. Bard.

Lawsuits pending in the state and federal litigations allege that vaginal mesh products were defectively manufac-tured and designed, and that manufacturers failed to properly warn patients about the complications associated with the products.

Firm partner Jeffrey S. Grand continues to lead the litigation against manufac-turers of transvaginal mesh in both state and federal court.

The Firm represents wom-en who suffered complica-tions after receiving pelvic mesh devices manufactured by Johnson & Johnson sub-sidiary, Ethicon Inc., and C.R. Bard Inc. to treat pel-vic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. The Firm is also represent-ing women implanted with transvaginal mesh products manufactured by American Medical Systems, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corp.

In July 2011, Mr. Grand was appointed co-liaison counsel by the Honorable Carol E. Higbee in In re Pelvic Mesh/ Gynecare Litiga-tion, No. 6341-10 (N.J. Super. Ct.), and in In re Pelvic Mesh Litigation/Bard,

No. L-6339-10 (N.J. Super. Ct.), two consolidated ac-tions of all the pelvic mesh lawsuits filed in New Jersey State court.

As co-liaison counsel, Mr. Grand serves as one of the primary contacts between the court and other plain-tiffs’ counsel, ensures that all notices, orders, and ma-terial communications are distributed; convenes meet-ings of counsel, and assists in the coordination of activ-ities and plaintiffs in the litigation. Mr. Grand has been very active in taking depositions, motion prac-tice, negotiating discovery, and day-to-day management of the litigation.

In April 2012, Mr. Grand was also appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Commit-tee in federal multidistrict litigations established in West Virginia for Ethicon, C.R. Bard, American Medi-

TRANSVAGINAL MESH L ITGATION

In order to receive market clearance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), pelvic mesh manu-facturers utilized the expe-dited Section 510(k) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act approval process, which enabled them to avoid ade-quate safety testing. In ear-ly 2012, the FDA ordered the manufacturers of trans-vaginal mesh devices to con-duct three years of studies on their safety and effective-ness as part of its review of the devices.

4

CELL PHONE RADIATION L ITIGATION

The Firm is currently repre-senting clients who were injured after cell phone radiation exposure against cell phone manufacturers. Recent studies show that heavy cell phone use puts individuals at increased risk for glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer, and acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the nerve that runs from the ear to the brain.

Currently, the Firm is part of a small consortium of law firms leading the litigation against cell phone manufac-turers. The lawsuits allege that cell phone providers failed to warn and protect users from dangerous and hazardous radio frequency emissions.

Federal regulators are also addressing the dangers asso-ciated with cell phones. On June 15, 2012, The Federal Communications Commis-sion (“FCC”) proposed to evaluate cell phone radia-tion safety. If the official investigation is approved, the FCC will also consider whether wireless gadgets used by children should have higher emission stand-ards.

In August, the U.S. Gov-ernment Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report concluding that the FCC’s cell phone radiation standards are outdated. The FCC set its guidelines in 1996 and has not updated

them since.

The GAO report stated that the cur-rent FCC limit may fail to reflect re-cent research on cell phone radia-tion, and testing requirements don’t account for maximum expo-sure. That same month, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced the Cell Phone Right to Know Act, a new federal bill that proposes warning labels for cell phones, the creation of a national research program to study cell phone radiation effects, and an update of radiation standards.

In October, the Italian Su-

preme Court issued a land-mark ruling – cell phone radi-ation can cause brain cancer. The Court found a causal link between a man’s heavy cell phone use and a brain tumor he developed. The judicial finding that cell phones can cause brain cancer is backed by a growing body of research that suggests long-term expo-sure to cell phone radiation increases the risk for brain tumors.

EMERGING AND ONGOING CASES

When Mirena migrates from its original location, it may cause a uterine perfora-tion or uterine rupture. In such cases, the IUD may also migrate outside of the uterus, leading to intestinal perforations or obstruc-tions, damage to other or-gans, adhesions, scarring, infection, infertility, and pelvic inflammatory disease.

If the Mirena IUD mi-

grates, it will no longer

prevent pregnancy. Wom-

en who become pregnant

with Mirena still in their

body are at risk for ectopic

pregnancy, miscarriage and

sepsis.

The Firm is currently evalu-ating potential Mirena IUD lawsuits. Mirena is an intra-uterine device inserted into the uterus to prevent preg-nancy, where it may remain in place for up to five years. Mirena was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Admin-istration (“FDA”) in 2000 as a contraceptive. In 2009, the agency expanded its approved uses to include the treatment of heavy

menstrual bleeding in wom-en who wish to use an IUD as their method of birth control.

A number of Mirena IUD lawsuits have already been filed in Superior Court in New Jersey, prompting Bayer Healthcare Pharma-ceuticals, Inc., the manufac-turer of the device, to seek designation of the cases as a “Mass Tort” for centralized management in Middlesex County.

The Firm is currently inves-tigating Mirena injuries that result from spontaneous device migration that occurs well after the IUD has been implanted in the uterus.

M IRENA IUD

PRADAXA

The Firm is currently evaluating potential Pradaxa lawsuits. Pra-daxa is an anti-coagulant drug manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., used to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism.

However, it has been linked to potentially fatal side effects such as causing excessive bleeding in patients with no way to reverse the process. Since its approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Admin-istration (“FDA”) has received 3,781 Pradaxa adverse event re-ports – 542 of which resulted in death.

These numbers are greater than that of all other monitored drugs. The FDA is currently conducting safety reviews of the drug, which has been prescribed to over a million patients in the United States.

Health regulators in Australia, Japan and Europe have also issued advisories.

5

The Firm cont inues to evaluate lawsuits on be-half of Actos patients who developed bladder cancer, allegedly due to long-term use of the type 2 diabetes drug. Federally-filed Actos bladder cancer lawsuits have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation in U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (In re: Actos Product Liability Litiga-tion, MDL No. 2299).

In June 2011, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the manu-facturer of Actos, to add new warnings to the drug’s

ACTOS L ITGATION

label after a study found that long-term use of Actos in-creased the risk for bladder cancer.

Since then, a num-ber of additional studies have con-firmed this link, including research published in May 2012 in the British Medical Journal which con-cluded that taking Actos for two years can double the risk of developing bladder cancer. A second study published in the Canadian Medical Association in July 2012 found that patients taking Actos face a 22 per-

cent increased risk of devel-oping bladder cancer.

Sales of Actos were sus-pended in Germany and France in June 2011 be-cause of the drug’s associa-tion with bladder cancer. Takeda formally recalled Actos from the market in France in July 2011.

According to an Order dated July 13, 2012, the first trial in the federal Actos litigation is scheduled to begin in No-vember 2013, followed by the second trial in July 2015.

The firm is actively filing cases in In re: Fosamax Litiga-tion (No. 282 N.J. Super Ct.), a mass tort action cur-rently pending in the Superi-or Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County. Plaintiffs in the litigation have filed suit alleging their use of Fosamax caused them to suffer atypi-cal femur fractures and other serious side effects.

Fosamax is a bisphosphonate used to treat osteoporosis and other bone weakening

The Firm is currently evalu-ating potential lawsuits in-volving Medtronic Inc.’s Infuse bone graft product. Medtronic Infuse bone graft is a bone-growth protein used off-label to treat cervi-cal spine conditions.

It is also used in lower back procedures, certain dental procedures, tibia repair and degenerative disc disease repair.

Fosamax

Litigation

The firm is actively filing cases in In re: Fosamax Litiga-tion (No. 282 N.J. Super Ct.), a mass tort action cur-rently pending in the Superi-or Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County. Plaintiffs in the litigation have filed suit alleging their use of Fosamax caused them to suffer atypi-cal femur fractures and oth-er serious side effects.

Fosamax is a bisphosphonate used to treat osteoporosis and other bone weakening diseases. A growing body of research has tied long-term use of bisphosphonates to a number of serious side ef-fects, including atypical fe-mur fractures.

On June 4, 2012, the Hon-orable Carol E. Higbee, who is overseeing the New Jersey state litigation, sent a letter to counsel representing cli-ents in the Fosamax lawsuits against Merck, informing them that she intends to focus on the trials of the bellwether cases involving Fosamax femur fractures. The first femur fracture law-suit in the state proceeding is expected to go to trial in March 2013.

Additional Fosamax femur

fracture lawsuits are pending

in a federal multidistrict

litigation established in U.S.

District Court, District of

New Jersey (In re: Fosamax

(Alendronate Sodium) Prod-

ucts Liability Litigation (No.

II) - MDL No. 2243). That

litigation’s first trial is

scheduled to begin in April

2013.

GRANUFLO AND NATURALYTE

The firm is currently inves-tigating lawsuits on behalf of dialysis patients who suf-fered catastrophic heart side effects associated with GranuFlo and NaturaLyte acid concentrates. Individu-als who experienced heart attack, cardiopulmonary arrest, sudden cardiac death or cardiovascular death within 48 hours of undergo-ing a dialysis treatment with either of these products may have a potential lawsuit

a ga in s t F r e s e -n i u s Medical Care.

F r e s e -nius is the larg-est dial-y s i s services

and products company in both the U.S. and the world. GranuFlo and Natu-raLyte were used at thou-sands of Fresenius dialysis clinics, and at over 125,000 facilities supplied by the company. Both products were subject to a Class I Food & Drug Administra-tion (“FDA”) recall in March 2012 after they were associated with hundreds of cases of fatal cardiac arrest among dialysis patients be-

ing treated at Fresenius facil-ities.

Fresenius Medical Care is

now being investigated by

the FDA over its delay in

warning thousands of doc-

tors and clinics of the risks

associated with GranuFlo

and NaturaLyte. Doctors of

Fresenius-owned clinics

were cautioned on the seri-

ous danger associated with

the products via an internal

company memo dated No-

vember 4, 2011, and advised

to make dosage adjustments

to avoid these problems.

However, doctors at the

thousands of independent

clinics supplied by Fresenius

were not informed until

March 2012.

6

IN ADDITION TO THE CASES ABOVE,

THE FIRM IS ALSO INVESTIGATING :

Da Vinci Surgery Robot

The Da Vinci Surgical Sys-tem is a remote-controlled robot approved for use in urologic, laparoscopic, and gynecologic surgeries. In some cases, the Da Vinci Surgery Robot has report-edly caused patients to suf-fer serious injuries, includ-ing surgical burns and tears to blood vessels, arteries and organs; cut ureters; bowel injuries, excessive bleeding; and even death.

Propecia

Men who used the male-pattern baldness drug Propecia and experienced persistent sexual dysfunc-tion may have a potential lawsuit against Merck & Co. According to recent research, 96 percent of Propecia users who experi-enced sexual problems re-ported that the issues per-

sisted for more than a year after they finished using the drug. None of the men had sexual, medical or psychiat-ric complaints before start-ing to take Propecia.

Proscar

Similar to Propecia, the active ingredient in Proscar is finasteride. It is pre-scribed to treat benign pros-t a t i c h y p e r p l a s i a (enlargement of the pros-tate). Recent evidence sug-gests a potential link be-tween drugs containing finasteride to both male breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Recalled Steroid Injec-tions

The New England Com-pounding Center (NECC) recalled epidural steroid injections in September 2012, after the drugs were

implicated in an outbreak of fungal meningitis and other infections. A number of lawsuits have already been filed across the country by people who were allegedly sickened by NECC’s epi-dural steroid injections. It is expected that all federally-filed claims will be consoli-dated in a multidistrict liti-gation in a single court for pretrial proceedings.

Topamax

Topamax, a medication used to treat epilepsy, mi-graine headaches, and bipo-lar disorder, may be associ-ated with cleft lip, cleft palate, genital defects, and skeletal malformations in babies whose mothers took the drug while pregnant. In 2011, the FDA reclassified Topamax as a Pregnancy Category D drug, which means there is human data

showing evidence of the drug presenting human fetal risk.

Zoloft

Zoloft is a selective seroto-nin reuptake inhibitor (“SSRI”) antidepressant mar-keted by Pfizer Inc. that is used to treat major depres-sion, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and anxiety disorders. Like Topamax, this medication has been associated with birth defects in babies whose mothers took Zoloft while pregnant.

Zocor

Manufactured by Merck & Co., Zocor is a synthetic statin used to lower choles-terol. The drug is linked to serious side effects includ-ing: muscle injury; myopa-thy; and rhadbomyolysis.

certain types of lower back (lumbar region) and dental procedures, it has regularly been used off-label during cervical spine and other back surgeries.

The FDA has received hun-dreds of adverse event re-ports relating to the Med-tronic Infuse, most of which involved off-label use. When used off-label in de-generative disc surgeries, it has been associated with serious side effects, includ-ing: uncontrolled bone growth, radiating leg pain, cysts, difficulty breathing difficulty swallowing, nerve damage requiring ongoing

The Firm is currently evalu-

ating potential lawsuits in-volving Med-tronic Inc.’s Infuse bone graft product. M e d t r o n i c Infuse bone graft is a bone-growth pro-tein used in certain sur-geries ad-dressing de-g e n e r a t i v e disc disease. Although the M e d t r o n i c Infuse bone

graft was only approved for

MEDTRONIC INFUSE BONE GRAFT

treatment, retrograde ejac-ulation (which can cause sterility) , cancer and death.

In addition to complications resulting from the off-label use of the protein, injuries are emerging even where the Medtronic Infuse bone graft is used to treat ap-proved conditions.

In October 2012, U.S. Sen-ate investigators charged that Medtronic deliberately manipulated studies to downplay Infuse Bone Graft side effects and promote off -label use of the bone pro-tein.

7

ATTORNEY ACCOLADES

The firm is honored to announce that the THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL selected Bernstein Liebhard LLP for the “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” for the tenth consecutive year. THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL compiled this year’s list by selecting nineteen firms that are “at the cutting edge of plaintiffs’ work – and are giving defense players a run for their money.” Of the firms named to the Hot List this year, Bernstein Liebhard LLP is one of only two named for ten straight years. This recognition attests to the firm’s commitment to providing the highest quality representa-tion for its clients.

NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL SELECTS BERNSTEIN

LIEBHARD FOR PLAINTIFFS’ HOT LIST

MASS TORT PARTNERS INCLUDED IN

The firm is also pleased to announce that Partners Felecia L. Stern and Jeffrey S. Grand are among five Bernstein Liebhard LLP partners recently named New York Super Lawyers for 2012. Ms. Stern and Mr. Grand head the firm’s mass tort and consumer protection practice. The recognition as SUPER LAW-

YERS places Ms. Stern and Mr. Grand among the top lawyers in New York, as only five percent of the State’s attorneys are chosen for this honor. Bernstein Liebhard LLP partners Stanley D. Bernstein, Jeffrey M. Haber, and U. Seth Ottensoser were also named to the 2012 SUPER LAWYERS List.

This marks the second year in a row that Ms. Stern was named a New York Super Lawyer. This year, Ms. Stern was also listed as one of The Top Women Attorneys in the New York Metro Area, while Mr. Grand was named to the Rising Stars list, which includes less than 2.5 percent of lawyers in New York who are either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for ten years or less.

BERNSTEIN L IEBHARD LLP RECOGNIZED AGAIN BY

BENCHMARK PLAINTIFF

The firm has been included for the second consecutive year in the 2013 edition of BENCHMARK PLAINTIFF: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO AMERICA’S LEADING PLAINTIFF FIRMS & ATTORNEYS. Bernstein Liebhard has been recommended as one of the top litigation firms in New York and partners Stanley D. Bernstein, Sandy A. Liebhard, and Jeffrey M. Haber have been recognized as “local litigation stars” – a distinction earned by being rec-ommended consistently as “reputable and effective litigators by clients and peers.”

As described by its editors, BENCHMARK PLAINTIFF focuses exclusively on plaintiff litigation, “highlighting firms and individuals responsible for bringing the cases that matter.” Ranking recognition was achieved through targeted questioning that specifically solicits peer feedback regarding firms conducting plaintiff work.

2012 List

8

is able to sponsor this organi-zation, whose mission is to provide support for women and families facing breast cancer. Once I heard of the incredible programs and ser-vices this organization pro-vides, I knew I had to get involved. The firm is proud

Bernstein Liebhard LLP sponsored the American Cancer Society’s Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Central Park 5-Mile Walk on October 21, 2012 in an effort to help raise money and awareness to fight breast cancer.

The firm served as a cor-porate sponsor of a team on behalf of an organization that offers peer to peer sup-port for breast cancer vic-tims. The team consisted of more than 400 men, women, children and college stu-dents. Partner Stanley D. Bernstein commented, “We are proud Bernstein Liebhard

to serve as the Team Cham-pion sponsor. ”

The purpose of the “Making Strides Against Breast Can-cer” walkathon is to honor breast cancer survivors, raise awareness about steps wom-en can take to reduce their

BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP SPONSORS WALK TO DEFEAT BREAST CANCER

BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD IN THE NEWS

risk of getting breast cancer, and raise money to help the American Cancer Society fight the disease with breast cancer research, information and services, and access to mammograms for women who need them.

Since Making Strides began 20 years ago, breast cancer rates have declined more than 32 percent.

In November, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and its co-counsel announced that a $68.7 million settlement agreement had been reached in the Stuyvesant Town class action lawsuit. When com-bined with past refunds and rent savings, total tenant recoveries are expected to exceed $146.85 million.

The proposed settlement brings to an end a 5-year battle that had its origins in the 2006 sale of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Vil-lage, the largest apartment complexes in Manhattan, to Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty. At the time, the $5.4 billion sale was hailed as the largest

American real estate deal ever. But by 2010, it had turned into a spectacular failure, as the owners of the complexes ran out of money, and the property reverted to its lender.

A group of tenants had filed suit alleging the original owner, MetLife, along with T ishman Speyer and BlackRock, had improperly deregulated apartments and raised rents while taking tax breaks from the city. New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the tenants group, but left it to the two sides to determine the rent over-charges and the legal rent for

the 4,311 apartments cov-ered under the ruling. The settlement announced in November was the result of almost 18 months of negotia-tions.

Under the settlement terms, the defendants will set aside $68.75 million to compen-sate tenants for rent over-charges from Jan. 22, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2011. The settlement also continues rent stabilization through June 2020 for each of the apartments at issue in the suit. The agreement yields damages of almost $10,000 per leasehold and average damage awards of $3,200 for the 21,250 class members.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP’s DePuy hip replacement clients were featured in a July 12, 2012 Reuters article on escalating DePuy hip lawsuits. The article shared the stories of hip replace-ment failure experienced by two of the Firm’s clients, one who had an ASR hip implant and one who had a Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant. Like many other victims, the clients interviewed by Reuters were forced to undergo painful revision surgeries, and both had elevated levels of chromium and cobalt.

Bernstein Liebhard Cli-

ents Share Stories of Hip

Replacement Failure

AFTER 5-YEAR BATTLE , STUVESANT TOWN CLASS

ACTION SETTLED FOR $68.7 M ILLION