294. The fee requested here would also compare favorably with awards in non-securities class action settlements. The following is a chart of the top settlements in non-securities class actions and the attorney fees awarded in those cases: Case Price v. Philip Morris, <strong>In</strong>c., No. 00–112, 2003 WL 22597608 (Ill. Cir. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 219 Ill. 2d 182, 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2005) <strong>In</strong> re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 297 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), aff’d sub nom, Wal–Mart Stores, <strong>In</strong>c. v. Visa U.S.A., <strong>In</strong>c., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) Shaw v. Toshiba Am. <strong>In</strong>fo. Sys., <strong>In</strong>c., 91 F. Supp. 2d 942 (E.D. Tex. 2000) Allapattah Services, <strong>In</strong>c. v. Exxon Corp., 454 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2006) <strong>In</strong> re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. Misc. 99–197, MDL 1285, 2001 WL 34312839 (D.D.C. Jul. 16, 2001) <strong>In</strong> re NASDAQ Market–Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) <strong>In</strong> re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., No. 94–897, 2000 WL 204112 (N.D. Ill. 2000) <strong>In</strong> re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 424 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2006) Common Fund Fee Award Fee Award Amount Amount % of Fund $7,100,500,000 $1,775,125,000 25.00% $3,383,400,000 $220,290,160.44 6.51% $2,100,000,000 $147,500,000 7.02% $1,038,450,000 $325,380,997 31.33% $1,055,137,127 $123,188,032 11.68% $1,027,000,000 $143,780,000 14.00% $696,667,000 $175,000,000 25.12% $690,000,000 13 $250,000,000 (approximation) No more than 35% 14 295. Attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a chart which summarizes the time devoted by attorneys and para-professionals at Coughlin Stoia to the litigation of this case. Coughlin Stoia has devoted 248,803.91 hours resulting in a firm lodestar of $113,251,049. 13 This case was a mass, as opposed to class, action in which approximately 8,000 lawsuits were settled. See <strong>In</strong> re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 433 F. Supp. 2d 268 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). 14 The court set a cap on legal fees at 35% and gave to a special master the power to adjust fee caps upward to a maximum of 37.5% and downward to 30% in individual cases based on special circumstances. See Zyprexa, 424 F. Supp. at 496. - 158 -
296. Attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a lodestar summary chart, which summarizes the time spent by plaintiffs’ counsel litigating this case, as well as each firm’s total lodestar. As reflected therein, plaintiffs’ counsel have collectively devoted 289,593.35 hours resulting in an overall lodestar of $131,971,583.20 over the six years of this case. 15 Thus, the average hourly rate for plaintiffs’ counsel is $456 per hour. 297. To compensate for the delay plaintiffs’ counsel have experienced in receiving any compensation for their work in this case, it is appropriate to use their current billing rates. <strong>In</strong> calculating the lodestar and determining whether the rates are reasonable, the Court should take into account the attorneys’ reputation and experience. No more need be said than to note that Professor Coffee has stated that Coughlin Stoia is the plaintiffs’ firm most feared by defense firms in the securities class action field. Clearly, the experience and reputation of plaintiffs’ counsel support the hourly rates charged. The Class received the highest quality representation in this case. 15 Hours and lodestar information that appear elsewhere in this declaration, the memorandum of law and the expert declarations use <strong>Lead</strong> Counsel’s time and lodestar through September 30, 2007 (and does not include the time of one of plaintiffs' law firms). Since that time, substantial additional work on, among other things, the Plan of Allocation, has been done. The charts at Exs. 1 and 2 reflect time and lodestar through December 15, 2007 (and include the time of the firm previously omitted), the day after the hearing for preliminary approval of the Plan of Allocation. It should be noted that the lodestar figures do not include time which counsel has expended in preparing the fee motion. - 159 -
- Page 1 and 2:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHE
- Page 3 and 4:
2. The Parties Establish a Document
- Page 5 and 6:
I, HELEN J. HODGES, declare as foll
- Page 7 and 8:
• Reviewed over 70 million pages
- Page 9 and 10:
6. The above recoveries were based
- Page 11 and 12:
gathered and which the banks and En
- Page 13 and 14:
14. In this endeavor, Coughlin Stoi
- Page 15 and 16:
17. Lead Counsel prosecuted the lit
- Page 17 and 18:
[T]his representation has been unde
- Page 19 and 20:
and the necessary involvement with
- Page 21 and 22:
case. The Court hereby awards attor
- Page 23 and 24:
published an article, “Enron Jolt
- Page 25 and 26:
statements. We compiled profiles on
- Page 27 and 28:
34. We had no way of knowing whethe
- Page 29 and 30:
which witnesses to pursue, but cont
- Page 31 and 32:
the market in October 2001. The ana
- Page 33 and 34:
said it was unable to determine whe
- Page 35 and 36:
depositions because discovery was p
- Page 37 and 38:
65. After the motion was filed, The
- Page 39 and 40:
institutional plaintiffs, their rep
- Page 41 and 42:
drawing on the expertise of our in-
- Page 43 and 44:
83. On May 3, 2002, the Preferred P
- Page 45 and 46:
finance certain of the partnerships
- Page 47 and 48:
and participated in a scheme to def
- Page 49 and 50:
(j) Arthur Andersen LLP (Docket No.
- Page 51 and 52:
Lead Plaintiff had adequately alleg
- Page 53 and 54:
(a) The Court ruled that Lead Plain
- Page 55 and 56:
director of New Power, and issuance
- Page 57 and 58:
94. On September 26, 2002, Lead Pla
- Page 59 and 60:
mandamus review, and that the Court
- Page 61 and 62:
106. On May 6, 2003, defendant Citi
- Page 63 and 64:
scheme, and certain specific allega
- Page 65 and 66:
pled with the requisite particulari
- Page 67 and 68:
Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Ent
- Page 69 and 70:
4. Motions to Intervene Additional
- Page 71 and 72:
Gramm, Jaedicke, LeMaistre, Meyer,
- Page 73 and 74:
professionals and experts, and atte
- Page 75 and 76:
121. On May 7, 2003, the Outside Di
- Page 77 and 78:
of Enron’s prominence and magnitu
- Page 79 and 80:
131. As part of discovery, Lead Cou
- Page 81 and 82:
Third Parties and Defendants Date S
- Page 83 and 84:
Third Parties and Defendants Date S
- Page 85 and 86:
133. Document requests and subpoena
- Page 87 and 88:
139. In responding to the document
- Page 89 and 90:
146. In addition to JPMorgan’s in
- Page 91 and 92:
10. Requests for Admission 152. In
- Page 93 and 94:
Protocol Order provided for the ord
- Page 95 and 96:
privilege. And the defendants agree
- Page 97 and 98:
Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
- Page 99 and 100:
Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
- Page 101 and 102:
Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
- Page 103 and 104:
Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
- Page 105 and 106:
promptly responded to all discovery
- Page 107 and 108:
Enron securities, and questions con
- Page 109 and 110:
securities, understanding of a repr
- Page 111 and 112: 187. Lead Counsel made further supp
- Page 113 and 114: April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed
- Page 115 and 116: 195. On April 13, 2004, defendants
- Page 117 and 118: Plaintiffs’ Investors Partner Lif
- Page 119 and 120: • Outside Directors’ Memorandum
- Page 121 and 122: 208. A two-day hearing was held reg
- Page 123 and 124: Expert Entity Area of Opinion Dorri
- Page 125 and 126: and is the basis for a presumption
- Page 127 and 128: nature of Enron’s financial condi
- Page 129 and 130: economically valid method and frame
- Page 131 and 132: primarily involving Deutsche Bank,
- Page 133 and 134: We filed a notice of request for se
- Page 135 and 136: 236. Bankruptcy Examiner Batson him
- Page 137 and 138: egarding the §11 claims, which wer
- Page 139 and 140: proceeds for our settlement. Thus,
- Page 141 and 142: egarding the policies and he moved
- Page 143 and 144: team; for example, we reviewed info
- Page 145 and 146: Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff fai
- Page 147 and 148: Opposition to Deutsche Bank’s Mot
- Page 149 and 150: Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.
- Page 151 and 152: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion
- Page 153 and 154: dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains t
- Page 155 and 156: the Pleadings (Docket No. 5019). On
- Page 157 and 158: joint-and-several liability for kno
- Page 159 and 160: pricing or trade volume data, estim
- Page 161: y the court and cited in In re Cend
- Page 166 and 167: ADDITIONAL SERVICE LIST Stuart Yoes
- Page 168 and 169: ENRON COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN
- Page 170 and 171: Name Title Hours Rate Lodestar Meye
- Page 172 and 173: ENRON - SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRM
- Page 178: EXHIBIT 4
- Page 182 and 183: TOP SECURITIES SETTLEMENTS Case Nam
- Page 184 and 185: Exhibit Listings and Notes regardin