|
Profile Title: Partner Location: New York Telephone: 212.946.9312 Fax: 212.273.4379 Admitted: New York, 1979 Education: A.B., Harvard University, 1974 M.P.A., Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University, 1978 J.D., New York University, 1978 Practice AreasInsurance LitigationSecurities Litigation Labor and Employment Litigation Since joining Milberg Weiss in 1989, Mr. Weprin has specialized in securities and insurance litigation. He has served as co-lead counsel in a number of complex securities class action litigations, including In re AremisSoft Securities Litigation (D.N.J.), In re All Star Inns Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), In re York Research Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), and Bharucha v. Reuters, PLC (E.D.N.Y.). He was one of the principal attorneys in the sales practice litigations against The New York Life Insurance Company, The New England Life Insurance Service Company, The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, and The Prudential Life Insurance Company. Previously, Mr. Weprin served as law clerk to Judge Charles P. Sifton of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and Mr. Weprin was associated with the law firm of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz where he specialized in commercial and securities litigation. From 1985 to 1989 he served as general counsel to the New York State Housing Finance Agency and the New York State Medical Care Facilities Finance Agency, two agencies that issue tax exempt bonds for financing nonprofit medical facilities and qualified housing projects. In approving the settlement in the Allstar Inns case, Judge Peter Leisure stated: We have a situation here which is a classic example of the benefits to be derived through the class action vehicle, to have the high quality representation of the class. The reputation of counsel . . . Barry Weprin of Milberg Weiss, precedes them to this court and I’m familiar in other matters with the case in which these lawyers work. The class was indeed fortunate to have lawyers of this caliber on this matter and the court is satisfied that the class was well-represented and had the benefits of the quality of representation that would not have otherwise been available if the class action vehicle had not been used.Mr. Weprin is a frequent lecturer on complex litigation issues. | 