Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

settlement agreement constituted an implied in fact contract to reimburse him for his efforts on
appeal. Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to fees based on unjust
enrichment because his efforts did not confer a benefit on the FDIC and because he had as much,
if not more, to gain from defending the appeal than the FDIC.
In re Access Cardiosystems, Inc., 460 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011).
The court denied plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff corporation and the
plaintiff shareholders moved for summary judgment on damages and attorneys’ fees after
prevailing on their breach of fiduciary duty and Massachusetts securities law claims. The court
determined that plaintiffs had waived their request for attorneys’ fees because no evidence
relative to attorneys’ fees was presented during the proceedings.
SEC v. Smith, 798 F. Supp. 2d 412 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).
The court permitted the SEC to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees against a responsible
party in connection with a motion for reconsideration of a preliminary injunction. The SEC
brought an action against various individuals and a company, alleging that they had defrauded
investors and committed various securities violations. It sought a preliminary injunction to
freeze a trust account held by one of the defendants and his wife; the trust sought to lift the TRO
that had been imposed. Because the court found that the defendant and his wife no longer held
any interest in the trust, it dissolved the TRO and denied the SEC’s request for a preliminary
injunction.
The SEC later discovered evidence that the defendant and his wife had retained interests
in the trust and that this information had been withheld during the preliminary injunction
proceeding. The SEC therefore moved for reconsideration of its motion. It also sought sanctions
against various parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the
court’s inherent power for the costs incurred in bringing the motion for reconsideration. While
the court awarded the SEC fees, it reduced the SEC’s lodestar calculation based on what a
reasonable client would pay for the services at issue in the relevant geographical area. The court
also reduced the number of hours for which the SEC could be reimbursed. The court permitted
reimbursement of the costs the SEC incurred engaging a tax law expert. It did not, however,
award attorneys’ fees and costs against those parties for whom there was no demonstrated
connection between their misconduct and harm to the SEC.
In re Sadia S.A. Secs. Litig., 2011 WL 6825235 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2011).
As part of its approval of the settlement of a class action, the court awarded plaintiffs’
counsel attorneys’ fees of $8.1 million representing 30% of the settlement amount. Plaintiffs’
K.4
K.4
K.4
313