BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP (BLB&G). Jeff's interest in class action settlement law began during his 13 years at BLB&G, which Mr. Leibell joined after spending 3 years as a litigator at another law firm. In addition to representing institutional and other investors in securities fraud and derivative litigation, which focused primarily on cases that involved accounting irregularities and complex damage considerations, Jeff created and headed BLB&G’s settlement management department. In that role, Mr. Leibell negotiated, documented, oversaw the administration of, and developed the allocation and distribution plans for, all of BLB&G’s settlements, which, during Jeff's tenure, totaled >$16.6 billion in recoveries, and included, at the time that they were settled, 5 of the 10 largest securities class action settlements in U.S. history. Among the more prominent of those are:

​

• In re Cendant Corporation Litigation (D.N.J.)
  The >$3.3 billion in settlements, at the time they were reached, represented the largest amount by far recovered in a securities class action; that amount still represents the third-largest securities settlement. (Read More)
   

• In re WorldCom Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
  The $6.2 billion recovered still represents the second-largest securities fraud class action settlement in U.S. history (Read More).
   

• In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
  The >$1.074 million settlement, which included $370,157,418 of cash and 314,333,875 shares of Nortel common stock that, as of June 30, 2006, had an aggregate market value of $704,107,880, resolved claims asserted under the U.S. securities laws and asserted in two class actions pending in Canada each on behalf of purchasers of Nortel common stock, purchasers of call options on Nortel common stock, or writers (sellers) of put options on Nortel common stock (the “Nortel II Actions”) (Read More). 

​

​

THE GARDEN CITY GROUP, INC. (GCG). Jeff left BLB&G to join GCG, where he spent over six years providing to its executive and senior management and to its class counsel clients advice concerning complex class action settlement, administration, and distribution legal issues. For example:

 

• In connection with GCG’s settlement administrations, including the settlements of WorldCom and the Nortel II Actions, Mr. Leibell analyzed and successfully defended challenges to GCG’s and class counsel’s proof of claim determinations that thousands of claimants lodged with courts in the U.S. and Canada; 
   

• Jeff Leibell developed and presented to attorneys across the U.S. continuing legal education programs concerning class action settlement, administration, and distribution legal issues; and
   

• Jeff Leibell supervised and developed protocols and procedures for a dedicated group of approximately 125 lawyers who addressed all legal representation and related issues in connection with claims made on behalf of over 350,000 claimants to the $20 billion Gulf Coast Claims Facility, and provided related advice to GCG’s executive management and to Kenneth Feinberg, the Claims Administrator, and Mr. Leibell's team.
   

Jeff Leibell also formulated and revised all of GCG’s information and physical security, operational, and privacy policies so that GCG became the first claims administrator to obtain the AICPA’s Service Organization Control (SOC) 2 report (and did so for all five AICPA Trust Services Principles) and so that those policies comply with all HIPAA security and privacy standards.

​

​

FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC (FRS). Mr. Leibell then joined Financial Recovery Services ("FRS") as its General Counsel, later becoming its Chief Operating Officer and now its ’s Chief Legal & Financial Officer. In addition to managing all of FRS’s legal and financial matters, Jeff regularly advocates with claims administrators, class counsel, and, when necessary, courts, on behalf of FRS’s clients in connection with managing proofs of claim submitted in dozens of direct and indirect purchaser antitrust class action settlements. Those efforts have included, among other things:

 

• Obtaining approval for the alternatives that FRS develops when its clients are unable to obtain the data and documents required by proof of claim forms;
   

• Compelling searches of defendant data to be conducted for FRS’s clients’ purchases;
   

• Explaining that FRS’s clients’ purchases are eligible under class definitions;
   

• Refusing to allow FRS’s clients to be subjected to inappropriate claim submission requirements that are more burdensome than those imposed on other class members;
   

• Demanding the correction of claims administration errors; 
   

• Insisting on reasonable requirements for responding to and satisfying proof of claim audit requests and deficiency notices; and
   

• Requiring that proofs of claim and audit and deficiency responses that, for good reason, were submitted after deadlines, be accepted as timely.