Reporting on Judicial Decisions of Significance to Business & Shareholders
The Court approved an award of attorneys’ fees of $4 million to class counsel. It found the fees to be reasonable under the percentage of fund approach, the lodestar-multiplier approach, and the fee factors considered in North Carolina cases based on Rule 1.5 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
Full OpinionContinue Reading MJM Investigations, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., December 13, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
This Motion to Intervene before the Court in this class action case against Microsoft was filed not by a potential party, but by a group of lawyers seeking to share in any fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. The Court refused to allow the lawyers to intervene, because lawyers who have never been counsel of record cannot have an interest in a settlement. Allowing intervention, which would have led to a fee dispute, would have delayed implementation of the settlement.
Full OpinionContinue Reading Rankin v. Microsoft Corp., June 10, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Court declined to award attorneys’ fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Statute. It found that there was no unwarranted refusal to fully resolve the matter, the case involved unique issues of law, and the defendant had valid reasons to refuse to settle this matter and to litigate it to conclusion.
Full OpinionContinue Reading Media Network, Inc. v. Long Haymes Carr, Inc., January 14, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
This opinion on attorneys’ fees was issued in tandem with the opinion in In re Wachovia Shareholders Litigation. Lawsuits had filed over a tender offer for the company, which led the Board of Directors to conduct an auction process which led to a higher price per share. Thereafter, class counsel and the defendant had agreed to permit the Court to set the fee, not to exceed $450,000, and the defendant had agreed not to object.
The Court considered, as it would have if there had been an objection: (1)…
The Court considered an award of attorneys fees following its determination that certain termination provisions of a merger agreement were invalid. This opinion was issued in tandem with opinion in In re Quintiles Transnational Shareholders Litigation.
Fee applications were made by attorneys representing a class of shareholders, as well as attorneys representing a derivative plaintiff. The Court observed that the derivative action did not fit well in the "fast paced" context of litigation over a merger. It stated that such claims were more suited to being litigated as shareholder…
This is the third of a series of cases involving Sunbelt, this one involving the successful plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. §75-16.1.
Full OpinionContinue Reading Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Enquist Equipment, L.L.C., 2003 NCBC 6 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 31, 2003)(Tennille), aff’d, 174 N.C. App. 49, 620 S.E.2d 222, disc. rev. denied, 360 N.C. 296, 629 S.E.2d 289 (2005)
The case considered post-trial motions, after plaintiff did not prevail on its claims for defamation and unfair and deceptive practices. The court awarded costs for expert witness fees, pursuant to its discretionary authority under under N.C.G.S. §6-20. The Court also awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. §75-16.1, which permits an award of attorneys’ fees when the plaintiff knew, or should have known, that its unfair and deceptive trade practices action was frivolous. THe Court found that the plaintiffs had prosecuted their case in a frivolous and malicious manner, and that…
The determination of reasonable attorneys’ fee under nationwide class action settlement is within the Court’s discretion. The court considered Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(b) in making its award. It rejected the percentage of fund approach given the uncertainty of the amount that might ultimately be awarded to the members of the class. Class counsel had the obligation to present time records which justified their fee request, the Court would not ask for them.
Full OpinionContinue Reading In re Senergy and Thoro Class Action Settlement, 2000 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. )(Tennille)
The Court considered an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel, who had settled eleven separate antitrust class actions, including one in North Carolina.
The value of the settlement to the North Carolina class was slight. The Court observed that it was a cost of litigation settlement of approximately three cents on the potential dollar of liability, which resulted in a benefit of $1.23 per class member, which it characterized as a "poor result."
The Court declined to follow the lead of the other Courts which had ruled on fee awards…
Continue Reading Long v. Abbott Laboratories, 1999 NCBC 10 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 30, 1999)(Tennille)
Class action counsel were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees where the settlement had created a common fund. The Court discusses various applications to an award of fees, including the lodestar method and the percentage method, and elects to take a hybrid approach which takes into account the reasonableness of the fees under the Rules of Professional Responsibility.
The Court further determines that the fee award must be based on the actual benefits received by class members.
After noting issues involving "consortium litigation" by the lawyers for the class…