Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Law Firms Seek $12M in Attorney Fees in Chemical Antitrust Case

September 17, 2019 | Posted in : Fee Award Factors, Fee Jurisprudence, Fee Request, Practice Area: Class Action / Mass Tort / MDL

A recent Law 360 story by Jeannie O’Sullivan, “2 Firms Seek $12M Award for $33M Chemical Price-Fix Deal,” reports that Miller Law LLC and Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson PA are seeking $12 million for striking an “unprecedented” $33 million deal on behalf of a class of water treatment chemical buyers who lodged price-fixing and bid-rigging claims, according to a filing in New Jersey federal court.

The proposal by the firms, which represented a class of indirect purchasers of liquid aluminum sulfate, calls for an $11 million class counsel fee and $1 million in out-of-pocket costs, plus $25,000 each for two plaintiffs who represented the class.  The multidistrict litigation accused General Chemical Corp. and others carrying out an anti-competitive scheme to artificially inflate American aluminum sulfate prices between 1997 and 2010.

The three-year, “protracted and hard-won” litigation, during which the lead counsel labored without compensation, resulted in triple damages for the class, the firms said in their fees motion.  The recovery “presumes” the purchasers could show they were overcharged by 10%, despite the defendants “seriously disputing” that proposition, the firms said.  “To recover more than 100% of the class’ treble damages in settlement — prior to the entry of class certification, no less — is not only a remarkable recovery, we believe it may be unprecedented,” the motion said.

The fee request is reasonable under the Third Circuit’s decision in Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp. in 2000, the firms said.  The seven Gunter factors courts must consider are counsel skill, time devoted to the litigation, risk of nonpayment, benefit to the class members, complexity of the case, objections to the settlement and fees awarded in similar class actions.  “The Supreme Court and courts in this District have made clear that of all the factors that courts consider in awarding fees in a common-fund class action like this one, the single most important factor is the result obtained for the class,” the motion said.