Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Expenses / Costs

$175M in Attorney Fees in $10B VW Settlement

March 22, 2017

A recent Courthouse News Services story by Nicholas Iovino, “Lawyers Share $175M Payday in VW Settlement,” reports that a federal judge awarded $175 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to lawyers that helped secure a $10 billion settlement in the Volkswagen diesel-gate scandal.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved the $10 billion package in October 2016 as part of a larger $15 billion deal, which included $4.7 billion in air quality improvement programs to mitigate the impact of cars that violated emissions standards.

The $15 billion deal was the most costly settlement Volkswagen has paid thus far for its use of emissions-cheating software in some 11 million cars worldwide.  The German automaker has paid more than $20 billion in U.S. civil settlements and criminal fines, and U.S. prosecutors have charged six of its executives over their roles in the scandal.

As part of the $15 billion deal approved last year, Volkswagen agreed to spend up to $10 billion buying back or modifying nearly 600,000 2-liter diesel engine vehicles tainted by defeat devices.  Defeat devices allowed the cars to mask emissions during tests while spewing up to 40 times more nitrogen oxide on the road than allowed under federal law.

Breyer found $167 million in attorneys’ fees and $8 million in costs requested by the plaintiff class lawyers was “reasonable and fair” given the “extraordinary result” achieved for the class.  The judge said the settlement put owners of affected vehicles back into the same position they were in before the scandal was made public in September 2015.  Volkswagen offered to buy back cars based on their pre-public scandal value or to repair them with EPA-approved emissions-reducing modifications.

Awarded attorneys’ fees make up 1.7 percent of the $10 billion settlement package.  The award will be shared among 21 law firms that made up the plaintiff class steering committee, headed by lead counsel Elizabeth Cabraser of Lief Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

The lawyers and their staff worked 98,000 hours litigating the case and negotiating the settlement.  They expect to spend an additional 21,00 hours processing claims over the next 26 months, according to Breyer’s March 17 ruling.

The average hourly rate for class attorneys’ work was $529, amounting to a $63.5 million lodestar, or total cost of litigation hours.  Breyer found applying a 2.63 multiplier to the lodestar was justified given “the complexities of this case and the extraordinary result achieved for the class.”

Lead attorney Elizabeth Cabraser said in an emailed statement, “The award will be allocated by lead counsel among firms who performed authorized common benefit work, based upon relative value of contributions to the case and time that was reported and complied with guidelines set forth by the Court.  These fees will not be deducted from any class member’s recovery amount.”

Judge Reduces Fee Request in Rita’s Water Ice Class Action

March 21, 2017

A recent Legal Intelligencer story by P.J. D’Annunzio, “Lawyers Want $1M Fee, Get $651K in Rita’s Class Action,” reports that the attorneys handling the Rita's Water Ice class action over the company sending unsolicited text messages asked for $1 million in fees, but a federal judge said that price is too steep.

On March 16, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class counsel's request for $40,000 in expenses and $10,000 in incentive awards, but denied their request for $1 million in legal fees, instead awarding them $651,000.  That reduced fee represents roughly 22 percent of the litigation's settlement fund.

According to Savage's opinion, more than 110,300 people are eligible for a piece of the $3 million settlement fund, and of those noticed, roughly 25,500 filed valid claims.  "The amount each class-member claimant will receive is not significant, but rather modest," Savage said, and because there were more claimants than class counsel had anticipated, each would get less than previously thought.

"Counsel claim that they extracted the largest settlement possible for the class in light of Rita's ability to pay," Savage said.  "Yet, rather than adjust the attorney fees to increase the amount available to the class, counsel propose a lesser recovery for the class members."

The class action was filed in 2015 by Sherry Brown and Ericka Newby.  The two claimed that Rita's sent them "Cool Alerts" text messages announcing when certain water ice flavors and other products were available at local stores.  They alleged that the lists were generated using a database of telephone numbers that the owners did not provide to Rita's.  They also claimed that they kept receiving messages after texting "STOP" in response to the texts' instructions to stop receiving future notifications.

A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in March 2016 and was approved by the judge shortly thereafter. Brown and Newby received $5,000 each as class representatives.

Nortel Creditors Challenge $4M in Fees in Chapter 11 Case

March 20, 2017

A recent Law 360 story by Matt Chiappardi, “Nortel Creditors Seek $4M Cut to Indenture Trustee Fee Bid,” reports that two hedge funds that held senior notes issued by a Nortel Networks Inc. unit pushed the Delaware bankruptcy court to cut their indenture trustee’s roughly $8 million attorney fee request in half, arguing that Delaware Trust Co. didn’t properly discharge its duties.

During a daylong hearing in Wilmington, PointState Capital LP and Solus Alternative Asset Management LP argued that roughly $4 million of Delaware Trust’s fee request comes from work connected to the defunct telecom’s official committee of unsecured creditors, the massive allocation dispute to decide how to divide $7 billion in sale proceeds among Nortel’s global units, fighting to protect its legal fees, or other duplicative efforts, none of which benefited the noteholders directly.

The hedge funds argued that as an indenture trustee, Delaware Trust has a duty of undivided loyalty to its constituency, but didn’t manage its professionals in such a way that limited the scope of their work to tasks directly benefiting the noteholders, and is looking for an outsized fee that doesn’t comport with its role in the case.

Arguing for the hedge funds, attorney James C. Tecce of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP stressed that the dispute was not about the “qualifications, caliber or integrity” of the counsel Delaware Trust retained, but how the trustee chose to utilize them and whether the fee request, some of which could be taken out of their recoveries, now pending is reasonable.

“This is not an objection we took lightly,” Tecce told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross.  “The duty was not properly discharged … [professionals] were not managed in a way to avoid duplicating expenses.”  Delaware Trust countered that its fee bid was indeed reasonable, calling the Nortel case “unprecedented, complex and massive,” and arguing that it, and its predecessor Law Debenture Trust Co. of New York, “carried the torch” for the noteholders throughout the eight-year-long case.

Decisions about where to focus efforts were prudently made on a day-to-day basis throughout the case, and that work ultimately led to the noteholders receiving a full recovery on their roughly $300 million in claims, Delaware Trust attorney Daniel A. Lowenthal of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP said in court.  “The irony is that now that they are receiving a 100 percent recovery, they now object to the amount of the work done,” Lowenthal said.  “These are the same holders who demanded we not sit on the sidelines.”

The issue stems from an objection the hedge funds lodged against Nortel’s Chapter 11 plan, which Judge Gross confirmed in January, not to the strategy itself, but to the fees, and how it plays out could have wide-reaching implications for indenture trustee fees in bankruptcy cases.

Indenture trustee attorney fees that are not covered by a debtor’s estate are typically paid by the noteholders or charged against their recoveries, but the hedge funds argue that the full amount of such costs are not reasonable when the indenture trustee is also working as a member of a statutory committee with different or overlapping constituents.

The hedge funds additionally argue that the indenture trustee is mischaracterizing its arguments, claiming that they object to its decision to sit on the unsecured creditors committee when they only take issue with charging fees for work there.  They also contend that the indenture trustee hadn’t kept the hedge fund in the loop about the expenses, only springing them at the end of an eight-year case.

Delaware Trust took issue with that argument, asserting that the noteholders were informed about the expenses at periodic intervals during the case.  Judge Gross did not rule, but did question whether the hedge funds were engaging in a “hindsight exercise.”  He said he would issue a decision in writing shortly.

The fee dispute is only one of several vestiges left hanging after Nortel came to a major peace deal that allowed for confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan earlier this year for a case that has been pending since 2009.  The major sticking point was how to divide more than $7 billion raised in asset sales, a good potion of it intellectual property transactions, among the various Nortel units around the globe, a dispute that was adjudicated through an unprecedented simultaneous cross-border trial in Delaware and Toronto in 2014.

Professional fees throughout the case have been estimated to exceed $2 billion, making it one of the most expensive Chapter 11 cases in history.  The case is In re: Nortel Networks Inc. et al., case number 1:09-bk-10138, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Federal Circuit: EAJA Fee Awards Must Use Local Rates

March 16, 2017

A recent Law 360 story by Chuck Stanley, “Fed. Circuit Says EAJA Legal Fees Must Use Local Costs,” reports that awards for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) must be calculated based on the location where the work was done, a Federal Circuit panel said in a precedential ruling.

The federal circuit rejected a veteran’s widow’s claim that ambiguity in the statute allows her to adjust upward the hourly rate for calculating attorneys’ fees in a benefits suit based on the consumer price index (CPI) in Washington, D.C., where the case was heard but little other work was done.

Instead, the panel ruled that Paula Parrott should have provided individual rates for work done in Dallas, San Francisco and Washington in order to win an adjustment from the statutory rate of $125 per hour, rather than using the CPI for a single city or the national CPI to calculate a single rate.

The decision upheld the Veterans Court’s decision to award Parrott fees based on the statutory rate because she failed to provide rates for each city where work had been done on the case.

“We think the local CPI approach, where a local CPI is available … is more consistent with EAJA than the national approach.  We therefore hold that the Veterans Court did not err in ruling that the local CPI approach represented the correct method of calculating the adjustment in Ms. Parrott’s attorney’s hourly rate,” the decision states.

Parrott had claimed more than $7,200 in legal expenses in a suit over benefits for her husband, a deceased veteran, based on an upward adjustment from the statutory hourly rate based on the cost of living in Washington, D.C.  Language in the EAJA, which provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to victorious parties fighting agency action, stipulates that a $125 cap on hourly rates can be adjusted upward due to an increase in the cost of living.

But Parrott argued the statute is ambiguous regarding the method used to calculate such an increase.  She further claimed the Veterans Court was obliged to accept her cost estimate because ambiguity in a statute related to veterans benefits must be construed in favor of the veteran.

However, the panel ruled the EAJA is not ambiguous because using the national CPI rather than local numbers would incentivize more attorneys to accept cases challenging government agencies in low-cost areas rather than pricier areas.  Further, the panel found Parrott’s claim the Veterans Court was required to side with her is not applicable to the EAJA since it is not a veterans benefit statute, but applies to all litigants against executive agencies.

The case is Parrott v. Shulkin, case number 2016-1450, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

London Arbitration Firm Recovers Costs from UAE Fee Dispute

March 13, 2017

A recent Law 360 story by Jimmy Hoover, “London Arbitration Firm Recovers Costs From UAE Fee Spat,” reports that a London-based international arbitration firm won back nearly all of the costs it spent pursuing around $2 million in legal fees from its representation of a wealthy United Arab Emirates (UAE) family in a commercial contract dispute, when a U.K. court found the family was drawing out the appeal process to delay payment of the fees.

The England and Wales High Court ruled that Shackleton and Associates Ltd., a firm founded by sole shareholder and solicitor advocate Stewart Shackleton, is entitled to 80 percent of the costs incurred from a proceeding to enforce the fee award against the Bin Kamils, a wealthy business family in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.  The fee award, handed down by a London tribunal of the International Court of Arbitration in 2013, stems from Shackleton’s representation of the family in an earlier ICC proceeding over a cement plant joint venture gone bad in the Arab nation.

The evidence in the case suggests that “the defendants lacked any realistic defence to the enforcement of the [fee award] and that the steps they took in the proceedings were taken not in pursuit of a genuine defence but solely for the purpose of delaying payment to the claimant of the fees to which it had been held to be entitled,” Justice Nigel John Martin Teare said in a judgment.  “That takes the case out of the norm and is a very significant level of unreasonable conduct which undoubtedly justifies an order for indemnity costs.”

The underlying ICC arbitration involved a joint venture between the Bin Kamils and Cypriot company Terna Bahrain Holding Co. WLL involving a cement plant with a capacity of up to 1.8 million tons.  Terna, which purchased a 40 percent stake in an entity holding a 25-year lease of the property in Hamriyah Free Zone in Sharjah where the plant was being built, alleged that the Bin Kamils failed to procure permits to allow the construction of a cement import-export terminal.

A previous decision from the High Court maintained that Shackleton “had been most heavily involved in conducting the case on behalf of the Bin Kamils in the arbitration” but was “was not available to assist” with the Terna arbitration award after a falling-out with the firm Galadari & Associates in 2011.  On Monday, Shackleton disputed the court's characterization of a falling out with Galadri & Associates, insisting in an email to Law360 that the non-payment of fees was "the only reason" that his firm ceased acting in the summer of 2011.

Shackleton won an award for £1.4 million ($1.76 million) in fees plus interest from the ICC tribunal in 2013 after the Bin Kamils refused to participate in the proceeding other than to say that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the claims.  Challenging a Paris appeals court’s order granting “permission” to enforce the award, the family unsuccessfully applied to set aside the award, but the Cour de Cassation dismissed the application in March 2016.

“The impression one gains from this history is that the defendants were intent on delaying payment into court as long as was possible,” Justice Teare said.  The court did not assess Shackleton’s costs but noted that his normal hourly rate of £800, or roughly $1,000, was “more than double” of what appears to be the “guideline rate.”  Though the court can exceed the guideline rate for sufficiently complex cases, “proceedings to enforce an arbitration award do not fall into that category,” the judge said.