20.08.2015 Views

1 INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS ... - Impact Fund

1 INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS ... - Impact Fund

1 INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS ... - Impact Fund

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

injunctive relief should be negotiated and resolved first, before initiating discussion ofindividual named plaintiff relief.6. Evaluate Proportionality - Consider carefully the degree of disparity betweenthe named plaintiff awards and 1) the overall class recovery; and 2) the range ofindividual class member recoveries.7. Keep Client Expectations Low - Because there is uncertainty in the lawconcerning incentive bonuses, potential named plaintiffs should not be enticed to sign onwith the promise of a big bonus at the end. Attorneys should provide nothing other thanvery modest estimates of possible incentive payments.1. Thanks are due to <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Fund</strong> fellow Sarah Varela for updating this article and toKevin Baker for his work on an earlier draft of this article.2. Class Representatives, also known as Named Plaintiffs, are the plaintiff parties whoare appointed by the court to bring a class action on behalf of themselves and thesimilarly situated unnamed class members. As part of the determination of the classcertification motion, the trial court will determine if the proposed Class Representativesare “adequate” representatives of the class. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23(a). This requiresa determination that the proposed named plaintiffs will vigorously represent the interestsof the class and do not have any conflicts with the class members.3. In some cases, incentive awards have been evaluated as part of a Rule 54(d)(2) motionfor attorneys’ fees. This approach is most typically used where the settlement involvesthe creation of a common fund and the court exercises its equitable jurisdiction to awardattorneys’ fees and incentive payments. See e.g. Roberts v. Texaco, 979 F.Supp. 185(S.D.N.Y. 1997); Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co, 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal.1995); In re Oracle Securities Litigation, 1994 WL 502054 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Lachance v.Harrington, 965 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Cimarron Pipeline Construction Inc. v.National Council on Compensation Insurance, 1993 WL 355466 (W.D.Okla. 1993).18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!