A recent Law 360 story by Matt Bernardini, “Attys Win $29M Fees in Samsung, Sony Battery Settlement,” reports that a California federal judge approved $29 million in attorney fees as part of a $113 million final settlement that resolves claims that Samsung, Sony and others fixed lithium-ion battery prices.  In her order, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the settlement amount was adequate for all class members and that the attorneys for the class of indirect buyers devoted a substantial amount of time and hard work in securing the large settlement amount.  Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ award of $29 million in attorney fees comes on top of $5 million already awarded in interim fees, bringing the total to $34 million.

“The common fund of the settlement equates to 11.7 percent of the single damages a nationwide class would have incurred during the eleven-and-a-half-year class period, which is an excellent result in light of the circumstances,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers said.  “This litigation has been pending for 6.5 years, and class counsel also has devoted substantial time to this litigation and foregone other work while litigating this case.”

The multidistrict litigation goes back to 2013 when buyers accused battery sellers — including Hitachi Maxell Ltd., Sony Corp., LG Chem America, Toshiba Corp. and NEC Corp. — of working together to hike prices for lithium-ion batteries, which are used primarily in computers and other electronics, from 2000 to 2011.

Under the settlements, Samsung SDI Co. agreed to the biggest payout at $39.5 million, while LG Chem struck a $39 million deal.  Meanwhile, Sony agreed to pay $19.5 million and five other companies also agreed to settlements in the low millions.

However, the litigation hit a bump when the law firms that represent the indirect buyers — Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP — asked the court in April to award them $34 million in fees, which would represent 30% of the total settlement.  They argued that such an award is appropriate and comparable to similar big-name antitrust class actions, and they also requested nearly $5.9 million in reimbursement for expenses.

But during a July hearing three class members objected to the $34 million fee request, saying the fees were too high and not in line with the 25% fee allotment that class counsel agreed to in their previous settlements with direct buyers.  Judge Gonzalez Rogers addressed these criticisms in her order saying that the $34 million fee award was reasonable and nearly all of the class members approved of the settlement.