A recent Law 360 by Jeff Montgomery, “Chancery Oks $1B Dell Class Suit Deal; $285M Fee Pending,” reports that a record $1 billion settlement of a stockholder class suit that challenged a $23.9 billion Dell Technologies Inc. stock swap in 2018 won Delaware Court of Chancery approval, while a proposed $285 million class attorney fee got sidelined for further consideration.  Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster described the deal — announced in November and the largest on record for the court — as the result of "a huge effort" on the part of class attorneys who battled through nearly 4½ years of litigation and racked up more than 53,000 attorney hours to reach the hearing.

Waiting at the hearing, however, were arguments by a large shareholder and a friend-of-the-court brief filed by law professors urging the court under some proposals to slash the fee by $100 million or more.  Pentwater Capital Management LP, which holds 1.6% of the shares at issue, argued that the 28.5% fee award would be excessive and urged the court to adopt a sliding, or diminishing, rate for mega-settlements.  A group of law professors also backed a declining scale, saying a $150 million fee would be defensible while keeping $135 million for stockholders.  "I do think the objectors have raised important points that I'm going to think about," the vice chancellor said after a 2½-hour hearing.

The class suit accused Dell and controlling investors Silver Lake Group and its affiliates of shortchanging regular shareholders by some $10.7 billion in a deal that converted Class V stock — created to finance much of Dell's $67 billion acquisition of EMC Technologies in 2016 — to common shares.

When the challenged conversion closed on December 28, 2018, VMware stock closed at $158.38 per share, and DVMT, or Class V, stockholders received just $104.27 per share because Dell's Class C stock had been overvalued.  "The simple fact is, defendants would not settle for a billion dollars unless there was a real, credible risk of much higher damages at trial," said David Cooper of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, counsel to the class, while explaining the decision to settle rather than pursue a much larger share of the stockholders' short-changing.

"There were an enormous number of obstacles, and this was very far from a typical case," Cooper said.  "In determining whether $1 billion is fair value for the class, whether it reflects positively on the performance of counsel, it simply did not make sense to look at $10.7 billion while ignoring risk" that there would be nothing recovered, as happens in many deal challenges.

Stephen B. Brauerman of Bayard PA, counsel to Pentwater, said it would be "credibility killing" to call the settlement unimpressive, but told the court there are concerns that the deal did not fully compensate the stockholder class for the potential $10.7 billion in damages.  "All were requesting the court to consider in its exercise of discretion" the potential for "adversely impacting the class, impacting substantially their recovery," Brauerman said.

Ned Weinberger of Labaton Sucharow LLP, also counsel to the class, told the vice chancellor that stockholder attorneys logged more than 53,000 hours on the case, with nearly $4.3 million in expenses, with the fee and expense award reflecting an implied hourly rate of about $5,268 per hour.  If the court is entertaining a size adjustment, Weinberger said, "we have already done it for you.  All of the precedents support a fee award on the eve of trial of 30% or more.  We sought only 28.5%," or a 5% reduction.

Anthony A. Rickey of Margrave Law LLC, counsel to the law professor group, advocated in part bringing Chancery Court litigation fees more in line with relatively lower payouts for large cases in U.S. District Court securities actions.  Rickey said a 15% fee would be more appropriate, providing a still large $150 million fee while earmarking another $135 million for shareholders.  "There is a considerable amount of decreased risk after motions to dismiss," Rickey said, "even in Chancery practice."

Vice Chancellor Laster said federal securities cases seldom go to trial and often settle after motions to dismiss.  "Why isn't that a fair distinction?" the vide chancellor said.  "It makes sense" in federal court, when there is similar work in each case "and people are benefiting from the size of the issuer rather than actual value added" in litigation.  In contrast, the vice chancellor said, the Dell counsel "had to litigate against the army of the excellent until they got to the verge of trial, where they had to settle."

A recent Law 360 by Gina Kim, “Joint Juice Maker Rips Class Attys’ ‘Overstated’ $8.3M Fee Bid,” reports that Premier Nutrition asked a California federal judge to cut $2.4 million from class counsel's "bloated and unreasonable" $8.3 million fee request in litigation over allegedly misleading advertising claims about its Joint Juice, citing block billing, overstaffing, lavish hotel stays and fringe expenses for "boba and coffee runs dating back to 2013."  In a 33-page opposition, Premier Nutrition's attorney Steven E. Swaney of Venable LLP accused class counsel, except for Iredale & Yoo, of presenting to the court "a bloated and unreasonable application asking this court to award $8,274,516" in combined fees, expenses and costs.

Premier argued the lodestar calculation of the two other class counsel firms, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon and Lynch Carpenter "betray a lack of 'billing judgment,'" as they propose a fee award that doesn't approximate what a paying client is willing to approve.  Their lodestar calculation is "massively overstated" since it includes time spent for other related Joint Juice class actions, Premier argued, pointing out the plaintiffs only prevailed in one of 11 related cases but are now submitting a fee bid as if they prevailed on all of them.

Excluding Eugene Iredale and Grace June of Iredale & Yoo, Premier complained that Blood Hurst and Lynch Carpenter's billing records are riddled with inefficiencies, including "top-heavy administration of work," block billing, billing in quarter-hour increments, overstaffing, nontravel work billing and other things.  Examples include Blood Hurst lawyers billing 24 or more hours per day and submitting several duplicative entries on a single day, staffing six lawyers on the trial, "two of whom sat passively in the gallery of the courtroom" and charging $575 per hour for a contract attorney, Craig Straub, doing document review, the opposition states.

"As explained in the declaration of Premier's fee expert Steven Tasher, a 40% across-the-board percentage reduction to BHO's and Lynch Carpenter's lodestar is warranted to account for these inefficiencies," Premier said.  "The total lodestar for class counsel should be reduced to $2,406,809.  This constitutes approximately 29% of the judgment amount, which aligns with the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark for reasonable fees."

Premier balked at class counsel's suggestion for the court to apply a multiplier to pump their fee award if their lodestar is reduced, and also took issue with their "extravagant expenses" that it said warrants an across-the-board cut in their claimed charges.

"Class counsel also seek reimbursement from Premier for every sundry or fringe expense they encountered over this decade-long litigation, including boba and coffee runs dating back to 2013," the opposition states. "Class counsel even tries to bill Premier for hundreds of dollars in laundry expenses incurred during trial — even though they apparently traveled back home to San Diego that same day."

The opposition references defense's expert, Tasher, who reviewed the billing entries and opined the class counsel's requests costs also reveal "a 'spare no expense' approach" to the case along with double billing and "phantom charges."  "In my opinion, while the dollar value for many of these items may seem small, they reflect a big attitude of no cost being too great to throw onto the bill and eat, drink and be merry on someone else's dime," Tasher wrote.  "No paying client would tolerate class counsel's lifestyle expenses or lavishness."

Premier said that Blood Hurst and Lynch Carpenter's proposed lodestar figure was grossly inflated and warrants dramatic cuts across the board, arguing that the firms can't include time spent on class representative depositions in other related actions in their calculation.  Blood Hurst's proposed lodestar also includes nearly 1,000 hours for trial prep spent in Mullins, which Premier said should be removed since the Mullins trial never occurred.  It's inappropriate for Blood Hurst to get 100% of the fees for work common to the related cases based on the successful outcome of just one case, the opposition states.

Premier also sought a 40% cut to Blood Hurst's remaining lodestar account for several deficiencies in their billing practices, noting that  the firm's Timothy Blood and Thomas Joseph O'Reardon billed for work done in 2013 at their current hourly rate, which is significantly higher.

While Blood, partner Paula Brown and Straub billed 1,000 hours for trial prep, Blood was the only one who had an active role at trial, and O'Reardon and Straub "sat passively in the gallery," Premier alleged.  Premier also accused Straub and O'Reardon of billing extra hours after trial each day and erroneously adding entries that exceed 24 hours a day "or are obvious duplicates," totaling $62,207.50.

Premier also attacked Lynch Carpenter's fee bid of $392,392.50, arguing the billed work was entirely spent on Mullins.  The fee should be apportioned among the related cases and then cut by 40% due to excessive time and top-heavy administration work, Premier said.  That should leave Lynch Carpenter with $20,842.77.  "As an initial matter, in what can only be described as a shocking act of chutzpah, Mr. Carpenter — who has not worked on these cases since 2020 — includes in his fee petition 13.7 hours to fly to San Francisco to observe one day of trial on May 25, 2022," the opposition states.

Nor should class counsel recover fees and deposition costs for experts that weren't used in the Montera suit, Premier said.  Furthermore, several charges from the two firms weren't only lavish and extravagant, but also "purely wasteful," Tasher said.

"Each of these issues is exacerbated by the level of staffing," Tasher wrote. "Had the trial been staffed with attorneys Iredale, Jun and Blood, (the three attorneys who actually appeared on the record to try the case), the expenses would also have been much more modest.  However, given the excessive staffing (and related trial expenses) of attorneys [Todd] Carpenter, O'Reardon and Straub, the costs grew exponentially, considering the additional flights, Uber/taxi charges, meals/alcohol, and snacks brought about by these three additional timekeepers (essentially double the trial team.)"

A recent Bloomberg Law by Roy Strom, “Quinn Emanuel Justifies Hugh Fee With $384,000-Per-Hour Return,” reports that Quinn Emanuel has new ammunition in its fight for a $185 million fee award, saying in a filing this week that every hour its lawyers worked on the case generated about $384,000 in returns.  That figure, according to a Harvard Law professor the firm hired to analyze (pdf) the fee award, shows the firm’s work in the Obamacare case was perhaps the most efficient ever performed by attorneys in a large class-action.  Lawyers in 13 similarly sized class action cases generated about $10,000 in returns per hour on average, professor William Rubenstein said.

Does that figure show Quinn Emanuel lawyers were, as Rubenstein argued, “epically productive?”  Or does it prove they’re getting a windfall?  That’s the question the judge overseeing the fee award legal fight, Kathryn Davis, will have to consider.  

The fee fight comes after Quinn Emanuel won nearly $4 billion for health insurers who were stiffed by Congress when it decided not to pay them for selling new, risky policies mandated by Obamacare.  Quinn Emanuel filed the first case taking on the US government, but a separate challenge wound its way all to the Supreme Court, resulting in $12 billion in total payouts.

The firm’s clients won every dollar they sought.  But Quinn Emanuel’s lawyers worked relatively few hours on the case—9,630 hours, to be exact.  It’s the equivalent of fewer than five Big Law attorneys working for one year, hardly a massive undertaking.  In the 13 large class-actions Rubenstein compared to the case, no law firm had worked less than 37,000 hours.

Because Quinn Emanuel’s lawyers worked so few hours to generate such a huge reward, the case has teed up thorny questions about how lawyers’ work should be valued.  Do attorneys just sell their time? Or should courts reward the result lawyers achieve?

In the Quinn Emanuel case, technical considerations have also been in play.  The firm initially received 5% of the $3.7 billion award they won—roughly $185 million.  That’s the figure Quinn Emanuel told clients they’d ask a judge to pay them.  It’s worth noting that a 5% fee on a contingency case is significantly lower than the 33% or 40% lawyers often charge.  But that fee got tossed when some of the health insurers appealed to the Federal Circuit.  They argued Quinn Emanuel should be paid around $9 million.  The appeals court noted Quinn Emanuel told clients its award figure would be subject to a “lodestar crosscheck.”  The Federal Circuit said that hadn’t been done and sent the case back to Judge Davis to consider that analysis.

This is how Quinn Emanuel described a lodestar crosscheck to its clients: “a limitation on class counsel fees based on the number of hours actually worked on the case.”  The lodestar method applies a multiplier to the attorneys’ hourly bill as a reward for success.  It’s usually about 1.5 to 3 times the total bill in successful cases.  If Quinn Emanuel was charging its standard hourly rates, it says its lawyers would have been paid about $9.7 million for their work on the case.  That means the firm is seeking a multiplier of around 19. (Rubenstein says the lodestar is closer to 10 when applying the firm’s newer, higher hourly rates.)

Just like the $384,000 in value-generated-per-hour, a lodestar multiplier of 19 is a serious outlier.  All of this makes the judge’s task a difficult one.  Davis must decide whether to reward the firm for its most-efficient result, or compensate it for the relatively little time case took.

How We Got Here

These outlandish fee award figures made me wonder: What happened to create such a unique case?  Rubenstein’s $384,000 figure doesn’t just tell us something about the lawyers and the result they achieved.  It hints at an underlying fact pattern that must be devastating.  The idea of the “most efficient” litigation in class-action history roughly translates to “the least effort to convince a judge of the most damages.”  What happened that required such little legal work to produce such a huge reward?

The answer can only be described as an unusual and epic failure by Congress.  As the US government careened toward a shutdown in late 2014, Congress cobbled together a massive funding bill to avert disaster.  It included, of all things, a provision that limited the government from appropriating funds to pay subsidies promised to health insurers who participated in an Obamacare program known as “risk corridors.”

The program encouraged insurers to provide new health insurance plans to riskier patients by sharing profits and receiving subsidies from the government. In the end, the government racked up a bill of more than $12 billion.  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) took credit for the provision, though other Republicans argued they were just as responsible, slamming what he called a “bailout” for insurers.

A recent Law 360 story by Rose Krebs, “Law Professor Say $150M Fee is Fair in Dell Suit Deal,” reports that a group of law professors says the Delaware Chancery Court should award less than the $285 million fee sought for stockholder attorneys who secured a $1 billion class settlement after challenging a $23.9 billion conversion of Dell Technologies stock, saying a $150 million award would "adequately" compensate counsel.  In a brief submitted to the court, five professors assert that using a "declining-percentage" fee award structure — by which the percentage of fees awarded are reduced the larger the settlement size — in this case would be prudent.

"Even under the declining-fee approach, these mega-settlements are extremely profitable, demonstrating the winner-take-all reality of shareholder litigation," the brief said.  The professors, who said they "publish extensively on representative stockholder litigation," argue that a fee award equal to 15% of the settlement amount is warranted, rather than the 28.5% class attorneys seek.

"Plaintiffs pursue large settlements because they tend to have the highest multiplier to lodestar — in other words, they're more profitable than the alternatives," the professors said.  "Thus, class counsel have adequate incentive to take risk, even on a declining-percentage fee basis.  Overcompensating class attorneys simply diminishes class recovery."  The professors said they "respectfully suggest that a declining-percentage fee award adequately compensates Plaintiff's counsel while preserving funds for the class."  A 15% award would preserve an additional $135 million for the class, while still compensating counsel at a reasonable rate for time spent working on the case, the professors said.

Earlier this month, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster said in a letter to Pentwater Capital Management LP and other Dell institutional investors who oppose the fee request that the Chancery Court was considering a 20% floor for an award, to be adjusted if warranted.  The vice chancellor asked for additional briefing from Pentwater, and also said it would be helpful to know what "law professors say in favor of or against the declining percentage method."

In a filing, Pentwater, citing several studies, argued that "empirical research uniformly confirms that in federal class actions, as settlement amounts rise, fee percentages fall."  "Contrary to concerns about the decreasing percentage model, scholarship indicates that lowering fee percentages does not reward lawyers marginally less compensation for the same work," Pentwater said.  Pentwater contends that the 28.5 percent award being sought "is unfair to the class."

On Tuesday, Vice Chancellor Laster allowed the professors to submit a brief as amici curiae.  In their brief, the professors also said that "a declining-fee approach may not always be best."  They gave as an example cases that sophisticated institutional investors "negotiate for a 'baseline' recovery (i.e., a settlement amount that a typical plaintiffs' firm could likely achieve given the facts known at the start of the litigation) with a relatively low fee percentage for achieving this baseline and a larger percentage for achieving a greater recovery."

"This approach, however, would require the investor to determine this baseline amount when selecting lead counsel and incorporate it into the retainer agreement," the brief said.  "There is no indication of such an ex ante agreement in this case, and it would be difficult to judicially replicate the incentives of such an agreement after the fact."

The professors added that "absent such an agreement, the declining-percentage award matches risk and return, adequately compensates contingency counsel, and preserves settlement value for the class."  They also suggested the court "should consider requesting other information before setting a fee, including any ex ante agreements Plaintiff's counsel has reached with clients and fee-sharing arrangements with any other counsel."

In an order, Vice Chancellor Laster DIRECTED each firm representing the investor plaintiffs to submit information by detailing several issues such as: how many ex ante agreements they have negotiated in the past five years, what percentage of their representations have such agreements, the nature of any such past agreements, and if any fees awarded in the Dell case will be shared with other counsel that hasn't entered an appearance in the case.

A recent Law.com story by Amanda Bronstad, “Federal Judge in Norfolk Southern Cases Warns Lead Attorneys: Keep Costs Down,” reports that a federal judge overseeing more than 30 lawsuits against Norfolk Southern insisted at a hearing that attorneys vying for leadership avoid soaring attorney fees and legal costs that would reduce potential compensation to the community.  “I want to make sure the residents are treated fairly,” U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio said at the Zoom hearing. “That there is a proportional distribution that isn’t overly consumed by the fees and costs of the attorneys.”

At the hearing, Pearson listened to two competing groups of lawyers hoping to lead the growing lawsuits over the Feb. 3 derailment, which exposed the East Palestine, Ohio, community to toxic chemicals in some of the cars.  However, her focus was on the local residents and businesses, which have suffered economic and property damages and, in some cases, medical problems.

Pearson told lawyers that the leadership team, whichever she chooses, should appoint a community liaison to make sure local residents are aware of developments in the litigation, particularly the class actions, which are likely to be consolidated.  And she does not want the legal bills to subsume whatever compensation could come from a potential settlement.  Now, the federal judge advised the litigants that she is planning to enter a ruling early next week.

And Pearson’s remarks about costs reflect a growing concern on the bench, particularly in class actions. Former U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, now on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for instance, entered orders in data breach class actions against Anthem, trimming the proposed leadership team and hiring a special master to review a $38 million billing request by 53 law firms.

Most Norfolk Southern cases are class actions, but some have individual plaintiffs. Also suing are the state of Ohio and a Pennsylvania school district.  On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, sued over Clean Water Act violations.  Those cases are expected to end up transferred to Pearson’s courtroom.

‘They’re Too Big’

Two competing teams want to lead the cases—one with 37 lawyers from some of the nation’s largest firms; and another group, less than half that size, calling itself “Team Ohio.”  A member of the larger team, Seth Katz, of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine in Englewood, Colorado, said lawyers metto discuss adding three members of the competing slate to his group.  But there was no agreement.

“Our view of the leadership, in this case, from day one has been that there needs to be some negotiation with respect to the co-lead positions in this case,” Ron Parry of Cincinnati’s Strauss Troy, and a member of “Team Ohio,” explained.  “They have four co-lead attorneys and are not interested in listening to any other proposition.  Our view is that’s something that should be negotiated.”

But Katz, one of the four co-leads of his proposed team, defended the choice of having four national firms at the helm.  “This is a case that has the national eye,” he said.  He said his group has a “great mix” of Ohio and Pennsylvania firms, as well as “national law firms that have the resources, knowledge and experience to guide this case to where it needs to go.”

“This is a big case,” he said. “It’s a very important case. And there’s going to be a lot of work.”  Pitching “Team Ohio” was Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.  He noted that, although he is in Seattle, he represented the state of Ohio in previous litigation against Big Tobacco and opioid companies.  On March 14, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Norfolk Southern over the derailment.

His team has eight firms—far fewer than the competing group’s 37 that are “going to drive up the fees and costs.”  “They’re too big,” he said of his rival team. “And the residents of the community, at the end of the day, want a team that’s not going to rack up too much money in fees and costs.”

A recent Law 360 story by Kelcey Caulder, “Ga. Judge Asked To Reconsider Sanctions in Billing Row” reports that a Georgia state judge is considering what evidence should be allowed to go before...

Read Full Post

NALFA, a non-profit group, is building a worldwide network of attorney fee expertise. Our network includes members, faculty, and fellows with expertise on reasonable attorney fees. We help organize...

Read Full Post

Every year, NALFA conducts an hourly rate survey of civil litigation in the U.S.   Today, NALFA released the results from its 2021 hourly rate survey.  The survey results, published in The 2021...

Read Full Post

A recent Bloomberg Law story by Roy Strom, “Big Law Rates Topping $2,000 Leave Value ‘In Eye of Beholder’” quoted two NALFA members, John D. O'Connor of O'Connor & Associates in San...

Read Full Post