A recent Law.com by Reenat Sinay, “Pomerantz Attys Seek $8M in Fees in Barclays Dark Pool Suit,” reports that a class of Barclays investors asked a New York federal court for final approval of their $27 million deal with the bank over its alleged mismanagement of its off-exchange trading pool, along with more than $8.1 million in attorney fees for Pomerantz LLP. The all-cash settlement was struck in January after more than four years of litigation, ending securities fraud claims that Barclays PLC and its former head of equities electronic trading William White hid or downplayed problematic practices in managing its dark pool until the former New York attorney general exposed it in a 2014 lawsuit.
The investors requested attorney fees of $8.1 million plus accrued interest for the 7,377 hours their lawyers spent litigating the case, and $791,680.21 to reimburse expenses incurred, calling the amount "fair and reasonable." "The fee award constitutes thirty percent (30%) of the settlement fund, which is within the range of attorneys' fees awarded by courts within the Second Circuit and is reasonable in light of the relevant factors, including the quality of the representation, the complexity of the action, and the settlement class' reaction to the fees request," they said.
The investors filed suit a month later, claiming Barclays misled them about the transparency and safety of its dark pool, and failed to disclose its problems in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Although Barclays marketed the dark pool as "built on transparency" and featuring "built-in safeguards to manage toxicity [of aggressive traders]," Barclays wasn't banning "predatory" traders and was giving preferential treatment to high-frequency traders, the investors alleged.
The investors noted that since the deal was preliminarily approved by the court in February, no potential class member has objected to the agreement or proposed attorney fees. An attorney for the shareholders told Law360 that they were "extremely pleased" with the settlement, which represents over 28% of recoverable damages and is "well above the norm" for securities class actions.
"Pomerantz aggressively litigated this case through summary judgment, and was poised to continue to trial," said the firm's Jeremy Lieberman. "Not only is the recovery in this case excellent, the precedents set at the Second Circuit regarding market efficiency and the level of proof required to rebut [U.S. Supreme Court case Basic Inc. v. Levinson's ] presumption of reliance will form the bedrock of securities class action jurisprudence for decades to come."