• About Us
  • Korein Tillery
  • Offices
  • News and Awards
  • Employment
  • Resources
• Practice Areas
  • Consumer Rights
  • ERISA/Pension Fund Litigation
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Tobacco Litigation
  • Appellate
  • Class Actions
  • False Claims Act
  • Pharmaceutical/Health Care
  • Product Liability
  • Securities Litigation
  • Telecommunications
• Attorneys
  • Sandor Korein
  • Stephen Tillery
  • Steven Katz
  • Douglas Sprong
  • Christine Moody
  • Stephen Swedlow
  • George Zelcs
  • Robert King
  • John Hoffman
  • Aaron Zigler
  • Peter Rachman
  • Howard Becker
  • Diane Moore Heitman
  • Christie Deaton
  • Max Gibbons
  • John Libra
  • Alexis Tillery
  • Klint Bruno
  • Christopher Hoffman
  • Katherine Tillery
  • Aidan McNamara
  • Michael Klenov
  • Matthew Davies
• Cases
  • Representative
  • Verdicts and Settlements

• Korein Tillery
• Offices
• News and Awards
• Employment
• Resources

Korein Tillery is a twenty attorney law firm with offices in Missouri and Illinois that has recovered billions of dollars in verdicts and settlements in a variety of cases across the country involving pension funds, insurance, securities, antitrust, pharmaceuticals, environmental contamination, tobacco, computer technology and consumer fraud.  Perhaps best known for its $10 billion trial verdict against Philip Morris, the firm has gained a national reputation for aggressively and successfully pursuing a wide variety of complex cases on behalf of its clients.  The law firm has received professional recognition for excellence among judges, lawyers and the community.

Korein Tillery has been named by the National Law Journal in its 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2008 “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in all specialties. The Plaintiffs’ Hot List, 25 Nat’l L.J. S3 (July 21, 2003); The Plaintiffs’ Hot List, 26 Nat’l L.J. S6 (July 26, 2004); The Plaintiffs’ Hot List, 30 Nat’l L.J. S8, (November 22, 2007); The Plaintiffs’ Hot List, 31 Nat’l L.J. S6 (November 6, 2008).  The American Bar Association’s Securities Litigation Journal deemed two of Korein Tillery’s cases, Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006) and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smth, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006), the two most important securities law decisions in 2006.  Securities Litigation Journal, Top 10 Securities Law Decisions of 2006 (Winter 2006).  In Kircher, Korein Tillery served as lead counsel for the plaintiff class from the initial trial court filing to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Court agreed with Korein Tillery and reversed the Seventh Circuit in a 9-0 decision.  In Dabit, Korein Tillery assisted the plaintiff class after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Korein Tillery has been appointed as class counsel in more than fifty class actions  and has successfully negotiated some of the country’s largest settlements.  See, e.g., Parker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Case No. 04-L-716 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Jan. 16, 2008) (settlement valued at $544.5 million); Cooper v. The IBM Pers. Pension Plan, 2005 WL 1981501, 35 Employee Benefits Cas. 2488 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2005) ($325 million settlement); Sparks v. AT&T Corp., 96-LM-983 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Nov. 4, 2002) ($350 million settlement); Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 04-2819 (D.N.J. May 22, 2008) ($323 million settlement); Folkerts v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 95-L-912 (Ill.Cir.Ct. July 7, 1998) ($252 million settlement); Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guar. Plan, 2004 WL 287902, 32 Employee Benefits Cas. 1362 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2004) ($240 million settlement); Malloy v. Ameritech, 98-488-GPM (S.D. Ill. July 21, 2000) ($180 million settlement); In re MCI Non-Subscriber Tel. Rates Litig., MDL 1275 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2001) ($99 million settlement); and Dunn v. BOC Group Pension Plan, 01-CV-382-DRH (S.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2004) ($70 million settlement).  Some of Korein Tillery’s recent accomplishments are noted below.

Consumer Protection
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 04-2819 (D.N.J. May 22, 2008).  Co-lead Counsel Steven A. Katz and Howard B. Becker. (Add’l counsel: Berman, De Valerio, Please, Tabacco, Burt, & Pucillo; Law office of John Maher; Glancy, Binkow, & Goldberg, LLP; Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla; Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.; Zelle, Hoffmann, Voelbel, Mason, & Gettem LLP; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP; Lovell, Stewart, Halebian, LLP; Stamell & Schager, LLP, Meredith, Cohen, Greenfofel, & Skirnich, P.C.; and Sommer, Barnard Attorneys, P.C.).  Beginning in 2004, several actions were filed against De Beers and its related companies alleging violations of federal antitrust law and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws on behalf of purchasers of polished diamonds.  Following its strategy of denying that U.S. Courts could maintain jurisdiction over it, De Beers refused to appear in any of these cases and defaults were entered against each of the defendants.

The entry of default, however, did not mean that plaintiffs litigated with no opposition.  Instead, counsel faced substantial opposition from intervenors and amici.  Furthermore, the entry of default did not eliminate the risk to the plaintiffs that De Beers could prevail on liability or damages.  Because De Beers defaulted, plaintiffs could not obtain formal discovery from De Beers and thus Plaintiffs were denied access to the means in which to prove anti-competitive conduct, damages and causation.  In addition, as the defendants are incorporated in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Luxembourg and Switzerland, enormous difficulties were believed to exist in seeking enforcement of a U.S. class action default judgment.
 
On July 22, 2005, Korein Tillery became the first firm to obtain certification of a nationwide class of diamonds purchasers in Null v. D.B. Investments, Inc., No. 05-L-209 (Ill.Cir.Ct. July 22, 2005).  On May 22, 2008, in a consolidated proceeding in which Korein Tillery served as co-lead counsel, the district court approved a nationwide settlement that created a fund of $323 million to compensate diamond purchasers and provided additional injunctive relief to the class.  While this settlement is the culmination of numerous related lawsuits, Korein Tillery attorney Steven A. Katz was instrumental in the settlement discussions that began shortly following entry of the Null certification order.  Korein Tillery's success in this matter was featured by the National Law Journal in The Plaintiffs' Hot List, 31 Nat'l L.J. S6 (November 6, 2008).

Wagner v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., No. 02-L-690 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Apr. 23, 2008).  Lead Counsel Christine J. Moody.  In April 2008, the Illinois Circuit Court finally approved a class-wide settlement providing for monetary damages in an action alleging that Lowe’s failed to make disclosures required by Illinois’ consumer protection law.  

Rogers v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 01-LM-1006 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Aug. 17, 2007).  Lead Counsel John W. Hoffman.  (Add'l counsel: Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms, P.C.; J. Dudley Butler, P.A.; Whatley Drake, L.L.C.; Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, P.S.C.).  In 2001, Korein Tillery filed suit against Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest poultry producer in the world, alleging it artificially inflated the weight of chicken sold to consumers through the infusion of water during processing.  The suit involved a complex interplay between federal regulations and state consumer protection laws and led to an important decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the scope and applicability of complete preemption.  Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 308 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2002).  In August 2007, the trial court certified a plaintiff class of Illinois consumers.  This is believed to be the first such case and class certification of this type in the nation.  

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Prac. Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008); Rushing v.  Alon USA, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-7621 MHP (N.D. Cal.); Galauski v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 06-6005 GEB (D. N.J.); Telles v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. C 07-1305 SC (N.D. Cal.); Becker v. Marathon Petroleum, No. 07-136 (D. Del.).  Co-Lead Counsel George A. Zelcs (Add’l Co-Lead Counsel Robert Horn, Horn, Aylward & Bandy and Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese; Kellogg Huber; Susman Godfrey; Carlson, Calladine Peterson; Richardson Patrick; Simmons Cooper).  The Motor Fuel MDL aggregates 50 federal class actions brought on behalf of consumers in 29 states and territories to remedy the unlawful, industry-wide sales practice engaged in by motor fuel retailers in failing to disclose and compensate for thermal expansion of motor fuel in retail sales to consumers.  As a result of retailers’ failure to sell standardized, temperature-compensated gallons, the amount of fuel received by consumers in every gallon varies according to the temperature of the fuel.  When consumers buy motor fuel that has a temperature in excess of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, consumers: (1) receive less fuel in every gallon than is contained in the industry-standard U.S. Petroleum Gallon; and (2) pay retailers more in fuel excise taxes that retailers are required to remit to taxing authorities.  Plaintiffs estimate that this practice costs U.S. consumers in excess of three billion dollars every year.

After carefully researching the causes of action in virtually every state over a six-month period, Korein Tillery and its co-counsel filed the first Motor Fuel Temperature lawsuit in this country in the Northern District of California on December 13, 2006, asserting causes of action against 15 separate defendants under the consumer protection statutes of 10 states and the District of Columbia.  See Rushing v. Alon USA, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-7621 MHP (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 13, 2006).  The following day, Korein Tillery and its co-counsel filed an action in the District of New Jersey, against additional defendants.  See Galauski v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 06-6005 GEB (D.N.J. filed Dec. 14, 2006; amended Mar. 2, 2007).  Thereafter, numerous other federal class actions were filed throughout the United States.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation assigned the federal class actions to the District of Kansas, the Honorable Kathryn J. Vratil, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The District Court appointed George Zelcs of Korein Tillery as one of three co-lead counsel in the MDL.  See In re Motor Fuel Temperature Practices Litig., MDL No. 1840, Case No. 07-md-1840-KHV (D. Kan. Sep. 12, 2007).

In their consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs pursue breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims in addition to claims under the consumer protection laws of 29 states and territories.  On October 22, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss each of Plaintiffs’ claims on numerous grounds, arguing, inter alia, that: (1) Defendants’ sales practices were consistent with the manner in which motor fuel has been sold in the U.S. since the advent of the automobile; and (2) the regulatory framework of each state precluded Defendants from compensating for temperature variances in the retail sale of motor fuel.  On February 21, 2008, the Court issued its 42-page Memorandum and Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to all counts.  In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 534 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008).

Environmental Protection
Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-710; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Drexel Chemical Co. and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-709; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Makhteshim-Agan of N. Am. Inc., and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-712; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. United Agri Products, Inc. and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-711; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and Growmark, Inc., No. 04-L-713; Holiday Shores Sanitary District v. Sipcam Agro USA Inc. and Growmark, Inc., No 04-L-708. Lead Counsel: Stephen M. Tillery, Christine J. Moody and Stephen A. Swedlow. (Add'l Counsel: Scott Summy, Baron & Budd, P.C.). Korein Tillery represents a rural Illinois water supplier in six cases against the manufacturers of atrazine. Atrazine is an herbicide that breaks down into degradent chemicals that are unsafe for human consumption in any amount. Atrazine is considered so dangerous to humans that it is not allowed to be registered for use in the European Union. Approximately 1,200 public drinking water systems are currently contaminated with atrazine.

Holiday Shores Sanitary District seeks to represent a class of water suppliers that have atrazine contamination in their water supply at any level, including those levels which fall below the EPA's maximum contaminant level. The defendants in each of the six actions sought to dismiss the case in part because Plaintiffs seek damages for water contamination falling below EPA contamination guidelines. However, on July 5, 2008, the Illinois Circuit Court ruled that Plaintiffs could proceed with their claims and denied defendants' motions to dismiss. Stephen M. Tillery of Korein Tillery argued the motion on behalf of the plaintiffs. The cases are currently pending in the Third Judicial Circuit of Illinois.

Graham v. Shell Oil Co. and Exxon Mobil Co., 01-L-1472 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Oct. 24, 2007), and Village of East Alton v. Piasa Mot. Fuels, Inc. and Thomas Oil. Co., Inc., No. 01-L-1171 (Ill.Cir.Ct. Apr. 11, 2008).  Lead Counsel Stephen M. Tillery, Christine J. Moody.  (Add’l Counsel Scott Summy, Celeste Evangelesti , Baron & Budd, P.C.).  Methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) is a gasoline additive that has a chemical attraction to water.  MTBE mixes so well with water that it spreads its toxic plumes faster and further than any other component of gasoline.  Once MTBE is released into the environment and permitted to contaminate groundwater, its foul taste and odor may render the water virtually unusable and unfit for human consumption and costly and difficult to remediate.  Korein Tillery, along with attorneys from Baron & Budd, P.C., filed these actions seeking damages for from Shell and Exxon Mobil for breach of their duty to ensure that MTBE would not pose an unreasonable risk to groundwater.  Following years of litigation, the litigation against the Defendants was terminated, the terms on which are confidential.  

Pension Fund Miscalculation
Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan, 497 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2007).  The Plaintiff Class, represented by Korein Tillery attorney Douglas R. Sprong, obtained summary judgment in this lawsuit in October 2004.  On August 14, 2007 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying the pension plan’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  The Seventh Circuit agreed that the pension plan violated ERISA by failing to include the value of a cost-of-living adjustment in the class members’ lump sum distributions.  The Plan’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied in May 2008.  The Court remanded the case to the District Court so class members’ lump sum benefits could be recalculated to include the value of the cost-of-living-adjustment.   Click to view the Class Action Settlement Agreement or the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement Agreement. 

UPDATE:  On April 12, 2010, Judge Sarah Evans Barker entered an Order approving the Class Settlement.  Click to view the Final Order Approving Class Settlement and Denying Pending Motions.   Several class members have appealed the Judge’s decision; therefore, settlement benefits will not be disbursed in September, 2010.   We do not expect to have additional information before the first quarter of 2011.

Call v. Ameritech Management Pension Plan, 475 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2007).  Korein Tillery attorney Douglas R. Sprong obtained a judgment on behalf of the Plaintiff Class in excess of $31 million at the trial level.  On January 9, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  Ameritech's appeal to the United States Supreme Court was denied on June 9, 2008.  

Municipal Tax Enforcement
University City v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc., (US Cellular) 01-CC-4454 (Mo.Cir.Ct. Feb. 22, 2008); University City v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc., (AT&T) 01-CC-4454 (Mo.Cir.Ct. Apr. 18, 2008); University City v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc., (Sprint) 01-CC-4454 (Mo.Cir.Ct. Apr. 18, 2008).  Lead class counsel Douglas Sprong and John W. Hoffman (Add’l Counsel John F. Mulligan Jr. and Howard Paperner).  Korein Tillery serves as lead class counsel for a number of Missouri municipalities suing wireless and landline telephone companies to collect unpaid business license taxes.  During the course of this representation, the Missouri legislature passed an industry-sponsored bill that immunized wireless carriers from back-tax liability and mandated the dismissal of pending collection suits.  Korein Tillery challenged the law as unconstitutional and prevailed before the Missouri Supreme Court, thus preserving access to the courts and reaffirming the power of municipalities to tax local businesses.  University City v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 203 S.W.3d 197 (Mo. banc 2006); City of Wellston v. SBC Communications, 203 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2006). 

In August 2007, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granted preliminary approval to a settlement between one of the defendants, Verizon Wireless, and the municipalities that calls for Verizon’s payment of approximately $25,000,000 in back taxes, plus payment of municipal license taxes at existing rates going forward.  This settlement was finally approved in December of 2007 and was featured in the National Law Journal’s Plaintiffs’ Hot List 2007.  

Since that time, Korein Tillery has obtained three additional settlements from other defendants.  AT&T Wireless agreed to pay $76.3 million, Sprint Nextel agreed to pay $52 million and US Cellular agreed to pay $5 million to 228 municipalities and counties in Missouri as well as agreed to pay all future business license taxes.  University City v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc., (US Cellular) 01-CC-4454 (Mo.Cir.Ct. Feb. 22, 2008); University City v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc., (AT&T) 01-CC-4454 (Mo.Cir.Ct. Apr. 18, 2008); University City v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc., (Sprint) 01-CC-4454 (Mo.Cir.Ct. Apr. 18, 2008).  Missouri Lawyers Weekly named the AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon settlements as three of the five largest business verdicts or settlements in Missouri in 2007.  Will Connaghan and Heather Cole, Top Verdicts & Settlements, 22 Mo. Lawyers Weekly (Jan. 28, 2008).  These settlements were also featured by the National Law Journal in 2008.  The Plaintiffs' Hot List, 31 Nat'l L.J. S6 (November 6, 2008).  To date, the firm has recovered almost $150 million in back taxes for Missouri cities.