Are You a Legal Professional?

Martin I. Twersky - Philadelphia, PA

Philadelphia Antitrust Lawyer
Your profile? Update now
Updated 11/14/2012
firm image

Berger & Montague, P.C.

1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

View additional websites ยป
  • Offers Free Initial Consultation

Jump To

Martin I. Twersky Overview

Martin I. Twersky is a shareholder in the Antitrust Department at Berger & Montague. He has considerable experience in litigation involving a wide range of industries including oil and gas, banking, airline, waste hauling, agricultural chemicals and other regulated industries. For more than 30 years, Mr. Twersky has successfully represented numerous plaintiffs and defendants in both individual and class actions pending in state and federal courts.

Mr. Twersky has played a leading role in the following class action cases among others: In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) (as a member of the Executive Committee, he helped obtain settlements of more than $200 million dollars and he received specific praise from the court for co-managing the major discovery effort; see 2004 WL 1221350 at *10); In re Graphite Antitrust Litigation(E.D. Pa.) (settlements of more than $120 million dollars); In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Miss.) (as a member of the trial team he helped obtained settlements of more than $27 million dollars); In re Revco Securities Litigation (N.D. Ohio) ("Junk Bond" class action where settlements of $36 million were reached and where he received judicial praise from Senior District Court Judge William K. Thomas for the "specialized, highly competent and effective quality of the legal services." See 1993 CCH Fed Sec. L. Rep. at Para. 97,809); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil (E.D. Pa.) (landmark litigation with settlements and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of gasoline dealers); and Lease Oil Antitrust (S.D. Tex.), where in a significant class action decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the granting of an injunction prohibiting settlements in related state court actions (see 200 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1263). Mr. Twersky was appointed one of the co-lead counsel in In re Abrasive Grains Antitrust Litig. (95-cv-7574) (W.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Twersky has also played a key role in various non-class action cases, such as Kutner Buick v. America Motors, 848 F.2d 614 (3rd Circuit 1989) (breach of contract) (cited in the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1991 Amendment to Rule 50, Fed. R. Civ. P.), Florham Park v. Chevron (D.N.J. 1988) (Petroleum Marketing Act case), and Frigitemp v. IDT Corp., 638 F. Supp. 916 (S.D. N.Y. 1986) and 76 B.R. 275, 1987 LEXIS 6547 (S.D. N.Y. 1987) (RICO case brought by the Trustee of Frigitemp Corp. against General Dynamics and others involving extortion of kickbacks from Frigitemp officers). Mr. Twersky also served prominently in savings-and-loan related securities and fraud litigation in federal and state courts in Florida, where the firm represented the Resolution Trust Corporation and officers of a failed bank in complex litigation involving securities, RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims. E.g., Royal Palm v. Rapaport, Civ. No. 88-8510 (S.D. Fla.) and Rapaport v. Burgoon, CL-89-3748 (Palm Beach County).

Practice Areas

  • Antitrust
  • Complex Litigation

Current Employment Position(s)

  • Shareholder

Bar Admissions

  • Pennsylvania, 1980
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit


  • University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1980
  • Yeshiva University, New York, New York, 1969
  • Yeshiva University, New York, New York, 1973
Videos & Photos


firm image

Office Information


1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103


(215) 875-3054




Contact Us

Offers Free Initial Consultation



When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our West Legal Directory disclaimers. Some lawyers publish comparative information regarding the services that they provide which may be subject to specific comparative communications restrictions.