A recent Law 360 story by Dorothy Atkins, “Facebook Class’s $98M Fee Win ‘Outrageous,’ 9^th Circ. Told” reports that objectors' counsel urged the Ninth Circuit to throw out class counsel's $97.5 million fee award for striking a $650 million deal that resolves claims Facebook's facial recognition technology violated Illinois users' biometric privacy rights, arguing that the judge abused his discretion in awarding the "outrageous" fee award.  During a virtual hearing, the objectors' counsel, Kendrick Jan, told a three-judge panel that the case has a "cornucopia of issues" that should be reversed on appeal.

For one, Jan said, U.S. District Judge James Donato breached his fiduciary duty to the class by awarding class counsel 15% of the total $650 million settlement in fees, even though class counsel told him they wouldn't seek fees for an additional $100 million added to the settlement fund after Judge Donato rejected an initially proposed $550 million deal, which forced Facebook and class counsel back to the negotiating table.  Instead, Judge Donato should have awarded class counsel 10% of the initial $550 million proposed settlement, or $55 million, which would've been reasonable and in line with case law on other mega-settlements, Jan said.

Jan's co-counsel John Jacob Pentz III also noted that class counsel's initial fee request reflected a 5.3 lodestar multiplier, which is the number of times the hourly rate would be multiplied to get the total fee award.  Judge Donato ended up awarding fees that came out to a 4.7 multiplier, "which is still outrageous," Pentz said, because 4.7 is well above the 1-4 multiplier ranges approved by the Ninth Circuit, and it translates to $3,750 per hour.

"That's beyond the pale in our opinion," Pentz said.  The objectors' comments came during a hearing on an appeal of multiple aspects of Facebook's revised $650 million deal resolving claims the social media giant breached the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by using facial recognition technology without users' consent to fuel its photo tag suggestion feature.  After years of hotly contested litigation, the case was headed to a jury trial, but the parties struck an initial $550 million settlement in 2020, which class counsel hailed as the largest amount ever doled out to resolve a privacy-related lawsuit.

But Judge Donato tore into the initial proposal, which he noted gave users just 1.25%, or $300 at most, of what they could be entitled to under BIPA, even though the state statute comes with a $1,000-per-violation fine and a $5,000 enhancement for intentional or reckless violations.  At the time, Judge Donato told the parties that the enhancement appeared to be a potentially viable claim in light of the $5 billion fine Facebook agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission in 2019 for violations of a 2012 consent decree over its privacy practices.

Roughly a month later, the parties filed a motion asking the judge to preliminarily approve a revised $650 million deal, which attempted to address Judge Donato's concerns by narrowing the release provision and increasing class members' potential recoveries to up to $400.  At the time, class counsel said it would seek up to $110 million in fees plus expenses based on the initial settlement amount.

In February 2021, Judge Donato signed off on the revised deal, calling it a "landmark result," but he trimmed the $110 million requested attorney fees to $97.5 million which reflected a 15% portion of the settlement.  He also slashed the requested incentive awards to three class representatives from $7,500 each to $5,000 each.

The objectors' counsel argued that the incentive awards are too high, and the fee award is outrageous, particularly given that the settlement only reflects 5% of the total damages at stake.  Jan noted that in In re: Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Secs. Litig., a 1994 case that involved a megasettlement, the Ninth Circuit awarded fees based on a 1.2 multiplier, which represented less than 5% of the total settlement fund.  In that case, the court also rejected a 3.1 multiplier class counsel requested, even though their settlement reflected 47% of the total damages at stake, which is significantly higher than the 5% recovery at issue in the instant suit, Jan said.

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Michael Daly Hawkins pressed the attorneys and asked the objectors' counsel how much they charge hourly. Pentz replied that he's charging $800 per hour for work on the case, which he noted is based on the Laffey Matrix, an hourly rate schedule set by the U.S. Attorney's Office based on a lawyer's years in practice.

Jan also argued that class counsel's hourly rate and lodestar calculation included hours the firm spent lobbying legislatures, even though both California and Illinois statutes preclude lobby efforts from being included in contingency fees. Without those hours, the lodestar multiplier jumps from 4.7 to 5.38, Jan said.

But counsel for the class, John Aaron Lawson of Edelson PC, defended the attorney fee award, arguing that the fact that Judge Donato rejected the initial settlement proves that he was honoring the class.  "The record is pretty clear that he was constantly aware of duty to the class," Lawson said.  Still, Judge Forrest remained skeptical and noted that it seemed, from the record, that if the court awarded fees based on the initial $550 million settlement, and not the revised $650 million settlement, nobody probably would have objected.

The attorney replied that it's the judge's discretion to award fees and 15% is the range of reasonableness, particularly since this case presented major risks and was tackling a novel legal issue with huge damages at stake.  He added that the objectors' complaints about the lodestar multiplier aren't relevant because Judge Donato only considered the lodestar to cross-check the reasonableness of the award, and the final basis for his decision was on a percentage of the settlement.  Additionally, the objectors waived their arguments about lobbying fees by failing to raise the issue before the lower court, Lawson said.

A recent Law360 story by Jessica Corso, “Houston Attorneys Sued for $5M Over Altered Fee Agreement,” reports that three Houston-based attorneys are being sued for around $5 million by a former client who claims that they deceived her into changing their fee agreement during a legal fight over her late father's will.  Caroline Allison sued Jorge Borunda, Nicholas Abaza and Michael Trevino in Harris County District Court on Nov. 9, arguing that the attorneys should return most of the money she paid them to represent her in a probate dispute involving the will of her father, who died in 2017.

Allison claims that she agreed in 2019 to hire the lawyers on an hourly basis but, a year later, they asked for a change to a contingency fee agreement whereby they would get 35% of any money or assets she collected from her father's estate.  According to the lawsuit, the lawyers made Allison believe that the case would go to trial and end up costing a lot of money.  In reality, they knew that her father's second wife, with whom Allison was fighting over the estate, was close to a settlement at the time they asked for the 35% fee, according to the lawsuit.

"By October of 2020, the lawyers determined that the estate was worth more than $18 million," according to the complaint. "Unsatisfied with their current arrangement with Caroline, and with dollar signs in their eyes, the lawyers set upon a course of conduct to fraudulently induce Caroline to change her agreement from an hourly rate to a contingency fee."  Six months after signing the new contingency agreement, the case settled, with Allison and her brother, who had also hired Borunda and Abaza, together receiving around $9.5 million, according to the lawsuit.

Allison claims that she ended up paying the lawyers $1.65 million more than she would have had she stuck to an hourly rate.  She is suing for that money back, plus treble damages she said she was owed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  She is alleging violations of the Texas law, as well as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

A recent Law 360 story by Jeff Montgomery, “US Trustee Opposes Ch. 11 Fees For MTE Service Providers”, reports that the Office of the U.S. Trustee opposed a $2 million fee award for the ad hoc committee of service providers in MTE Holdings LLC's contentious Chapter 11 in Delaware, arguing that the committee failed to show how it benefited the estate.  Several other participants in MTE's case, including MTE itself, had also opposed the request, asserting that the committee failed to show that its efforts were for the benefit of any constituency "other than its own members."

No official committee of unsecured creditors was formed in the case, with the ad hoc group asserting rights under liens.  An insufficient number of creditors agreed to serve in a traditional unsecured creditor capacity, the trustee observed.  The debtors waded through complex disputes, the trustee wrote, including a push for the appointments of a Chapter 11 trustee and a new board, chief restructuring officer and other key figures, as well as the appointment of a mediator.

"There is nothing in the mediator motion, or in the ad hoc committee's motion for substantial contribution, that indicates that the ad hoc committee played a role in negotiating the appointment of a mediator," the trustee objection said, adding separately that "Creditors are presumed to act in their own interest until they satisfy the court that their efforts have transcended self-protection."  Committee members failed to show they acted beyond self-interest, the trustee wrote, or filed motions that duplicated those of the other groups in the case.

"Importantly, the motion fails to present any evidence that the ad hoc committee's actions permitted the reorganization to proceed with a minimum of litigation, keeping costs low and hastening the reorganization by, for example, ensuring that key parties were satisfied with the direction of the case," the trustee wrote.  MTE's own objection went further, arguing that "voicing support for work already done by other creditors or constituencies hardly rises to the lofty level of 'substantial contribution.'"

The committee presented a different picture in its motion, which included a request for more than $1 million in fees for its counsel from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.  "With no official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in these cases, the ad hoc committee stepped in and led the charge on behalf of all statutory lienholders," the group's motion said.  Its actions were said to have "ultimately resulted in the filing of a plan of reorganization, which benefited all interested parties and the debtors' estates."  A decision on the motion is pending.

A recent Law 360 story by Caroline Simson, “King & Spalding Says Fee Fight Must Be Arbitrated”, reports that King & Spalding is urging a Texas court to force a former client to arbitrate allegations that the firm fraudulently colluded with Burford Capital to maximize fees while representing him ​​in a treaty claim​ against Vietnam, pointing to an arbitration clause in the underlying fee agreement.  Fighting back against Trinh Vinh Binh's arguments earlier this month that the clause is inapplicable because the firm didn't sign the funding agreement with Burford, King & Spalding argued in a brief that the clause is broad enough to encompass the dispute.

Binh, who's accused the firm and two of its international arbitration partners in Houston of making a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients," told the court that the funding agreement doesn't contain any reference to King & Spalding.  In fact, the firm had already inked a deal with him that laid out all the terms of their relationship and did not include an arbitration clause, he said.

But the firm pointed in its brief to the wording of the clause, noting that it applies to "any controversy or claim" that is "relat[ed] to" the funding agreement.  The clause also applies to "any other transaction document," which includes a "counsel letter" through which Binh instructed the firm to distribute any arbitration proceeds in accordance with the funding agreement, according to the brief.  "Plaintiff cannot reasonably dispute that his claims 'relate to' the [funding agreement] and the counsel letter," according to the brief, which notes that Binh is seeking damages based on the firm's alleged failure to allocate the arbitration proceeds in compliance with the funding agreement.

"While plaintiff attempts to characterize these claims as arising out of the engagement agreement, that agreement does not address the allocation of arbitration proceeds," the firm continued. "The terms cited in the petition were set forth in the [funding agreement] and 'agreed to' by defendants through the counsel letter, bringing those claims squarely within the ambit of the [funding agreement]'s arbitration agreement."

Counsel for Binh declined to comment, saying they will file a response with the court.  Binh sued King & Spalding and two of its partners, Reggie R. Smith and Craig S. Miles, in June, alleging they made a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients" by "colluding" with litigation funder Burford to take more of the arbitration proceeds than Binh had agreed to.

The law firm had represented Binh in a treaty claim against Vietnam over the confiscation of certain real estate that ended in a $45 million award against the country in 2019.  In the arbitration, filed in 2015, Binh accused the country of improperly taking several valuable properties he says were worth an estimated $214 million.  Under their deal, the law firm agreed to hold back 30% of billings for fees and defer the payment of those amounts until work had concluded in the arbitration.

At the same time, Binh entered into a funding agreement with Burford Capital with a $4.678 million spending cap, according to the suit.  Binh claims that King & Spalding told him the firm could complete the arbitration work within that cap.  But by May 2016, the firm had already billed and been paid some $1.9 million, leaving about $1.8 million after initial costs and expenses had been paid out.  Binh alleges that at that point the firm, "motivated by securing continued, guaranteed immediate payment of their fees, colluded with Burford" to contrive a scheme to increase the amount potentially owed by Binh by increasing the cap on King & Spalding's legal fees and, consequently, increasing Burford's potential entitlement to an increased return.

Binh says that the way the agreement worked was that the more King & Spalding billed against the cap amount in legal spending, the more he was at risk of paying a so-called success return, to be paid if he prevailed in the arbitration.  The success return was to be split between King & Spalding and Burford based on the relative portion of their investments in the arbitration, Binh said.  Binh alleges that King & Spalding tried to make him agree to increase the cap on expenditures for legal fees — and potentially, provide more of a return for Burford — but that he refused.  Thereafter, Burford and the law firm allegedly executed a side agreement between themselves.

In addition to accusing King & Spalding of breaching its fiduciary duty, Binh's lawsuit includes claims for negligence if the overpayment of fees was due to a mistake, as well as claims of misrepresentation and fraud.  He also accuses the firm of negligence after the tribunal in the case against Vietnam rejected an expert report the firm provided stating that Binh's property was worth some $214 million.  The tribunal instead awarded $45.4 million.

A recent Law 360 story by Caroline Simson, “No Arbitration For King & Spalding Client Fight, Court Hears”, reports that a Dutch citizen who accuses King & Spalding LLP of fraudulently colluding with Burford Capital to maximize fees ​​in a treaty claim​ against Vietnam​ is fighting the law firm's efforts to send the fee dispute to arbitration, arguing that an arbitration clause in the funding agreement is inapplicable.

Trinh Vinh Binh sued King & Spalding and two of its international arbitration partners in Houston, Reggie R. Smith and Craig S. Miles, in June, alleging they made a "mockery of the fiduciary obligations an attorney owes to their clients" by "colluding" with litigation funder Burford to take more of the arbitration proceeds than Binh had agreed to.  The law firm had represented Binh in a treaty claim against Vietnam over the confiscation of certain real estate that ended in a $45 million award against the country in 2019.

King & Spalding pressed a federal court in Houston last month to send the dispute with Binh to arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the funding agreement and alleging that Binh excluded Burford from his suit in an attempt to skirt the clause.  The law firm claims that even though it is not a signatory to the funding agreement, the broad scope of the clause provides for arbitration of any dispute arising out of the pact.

But Binh argued that the clause governs disputes only between him and Burford, and not with any third parties. He said that the engagement agreement he signed with King & Spalding when he retained the firm for the Vietnam matter makes no mention of arbitration for disputes.  "Defendants are attorneys, and they certainly know how to draft an arbitration clause.  But the engagement agreement between Binh and defendants contains no arbitration clause," Binh's attorneys said. "Try as they might, defendants have not shown — and cannot show — that they may properly invoke the [funding agreement's] arbitration clause.  Binh therefore respectfully requests that this court deny defendants' motion."

King & Spalding had represented Binh in an arbitration matter filed against Vietnam in 2015, in which Binh accused the country of improperly taking several valuable properties he says were worth an estimated $214 million.  Under their deal, the law firm agreed to hold back 30% of billings for fees and defer the payment of those amounts until work had concluded in the arbitration.  At the same time, Binh entered into a funding agreement with Burford Capital with a $4.678 million spending cap, according to the suit.

Binh claims that King & Spalding told him the firm could complete the arbitration work within that cap.  But by May 2016, the firm had already billed and been paid some $1.9 million, leaving about $1.8 million after initial costs and expenses had been paid out.

Binh alleges that at that point the firm, "motivated by securing continued, guaranteed immediate payment of their fees, colluded with Burford" to contrive a scheme to increase the amount potentially owed by Binh by increasing the cap on King & Spalding's legal fees and, consequently, increasing Burford's potential entitlement to an increased return.  The way the agreement worked was that the more King & Spalding billed against the cap amount in legal spending, the more Binh was at risk of paying a so-called success return, to be paid if Binh prevailed in the arbitration.  The success return was to be split between King & Spalding and Burford based on the relative portion of their investments in the arbitration.

Binh alleges that King & Spalding tried to make him agree to increase the cap on expenditures for legal fees — and potentially, provide more of a return for Burford — but that he refused.  Thereafter, Burford and the law firm allegedly executed a side agreement between themselves.

In addition to accusing King & Spalding of breaching its fiduciary duty, Binh's lawsuit includes claims for negligence if the overpayment of fees was due to a mistake, as well as claims of misrepresentation and fraud.  He also accuses the firm of negligence after the tribunal in the case against Vietnam rejected an expert report the firm provided stating that Binh's property was worth some $214 million.  The tribunal instead awarded $45.4 million.

A recent Fordham Law Review working paper by Brian T. Fitzpatrick, “A Fiduciary Judge’s Guide To Awarding Fees in Class Actions (pdf),” considers the fiduciary role of judges in awarding...

Read Full Post