Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—EDPa: $7.5 Million in Attorney Fees Awarded from $25 Million Settlement in Egg Price Fixing Class Action, (Nov 12, 2012)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Attorneys representing grocery stores, commercial food manufacturers, restaurants, and other food service providers that purchased egg products directly from egg producers Moark, LLC, Norco Ranch, Inc., and Land O'Lakes, Inc. in an antitrust class action were entitled to $7.5 million in fees from a $25 million settlement fund, the federal district court in Philadelphia has decided (In Re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, November 9, 2012, Pratter, G.). The court also approved $434,944 to cover litigation expenses. Interim co-lead counsel will distribute the fees awarded from the settlement among the firms representing the plaintiffs.

In July, the court granted final approval of the settlement between these direct purchasers and defendants (2012-2 Trade Cases ¶77,975). The settlement resolved claims that the defending egg producers engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the supply of egg products and thereby affect the domestic prices of those goods. Additionally, under the terms of the settlement, the settling defendants agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in preparing their case against others. The settlement called for an award of attorney fees in an amount not to exceed 30 percent of the settlement fund. No class members objected to the settlement.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs requested attorney fees in an amount equal to 30 percent of the settlement fund, and the court determined that they were entitled to that amount. The attorneys acted skillfully and efficiently in reaching the settlement, the court decided. In approving the award, the court also noted the complexity that necessarily accompanies consolidated antitrust litigation and the duration of the case. Further, the firms collectively spent over 22,000 hours working on the matter through the date that the court held a final fairness hearing for the settlement.

The court cross-checked the percentage award against the “lodestar” award method, which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly billing rate. The court concluded that the lodestar cross-check supported the analysis under the percentage-of-recovery method.

Plaintiffs' counsel represented that, based on their hourly rates and hours worked, their total lodestar through the date of the final fairness hearing on the settlement amounted to approximately $11 million. The court's independent calculation of the lodestar was approximately $10.8 million. The difference between these two figures was insignificant, since the lodestar of the attorneys generated a multiplier of 0.68, while that of the court generated one of 0.69. Both multipliers indicated that the proposed award should be approved, according to the court.

The case is 08-md-2002.

Steven A. Asher (Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC) for plaintiffs.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews