
Case 1:16-cv-00292-LPS-CJB Document 194 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 6365 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE HORSEHEAD HOLDING Civil. Action No. 16-292-LPS-CJB CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION Consolidated CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES Sidney S. Liebesman (DE #3702) Wali Rushdan (DE#5796) FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Citizens Bank Center 919 North Market Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19899-2323 (302) 442-7627 direct (302) 656-8920 fax [email protected] [email protected] Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs GLANCY PRONGAY& MURRAY LLP Brian P. Murray (admitted pro hac vice) Gregory B. Linkh (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 [email protected] [email protected] Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs (Additional Counsel Listed On Signature Page) Case 1:16-cv-00292-LPS-CJB Document 194 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 6366 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 POINT I PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL SHOULD BE AWARDED FEES OF 33 1/3% OF THE COMMON FUND .............. 2 A. The Standard Governing the Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Common Fund Cases .......... 2 1. Plaintiffs’ Counsel are Entitled to a Fee from the Common Fund They Created ................................................................................................................. 2 2. The Court Should Award Attorneys’ Fees Using the Percentage Approach ................ 3 B. The Requested Fee of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund is Fair and Reasonable Under the Third Circuit’s Gunter Factors ........................................................................... 4 1. The Size And Nature Of The Common Fund Created And The Number Of Persons Benefitted By The Settlement ....................................... 4 2. The Absence Of Objections By Class Members To The Fee Request ......................... 5 3. The Skill And Efficiency Of Lead Counsel .................................................................. 5 4. The Complexity And Duration Of The Litigation ........................................................ 6 5. The Risk Of Non-Payment............................................................................................ 8 6. The Significant Time Devoted To This Case By Lead Counsel ................................... 9 7. The Requested Fee Is Within The Range Of Fees Typically Awarded In Actions Of This Nature........................................................... 11 C. The Requested Fee Is Reasonable Under A Lodestar Cross-Check .............................. 12 POINT II LEAD COUNSEL’S APPLICATION FOR REASONABLY-INCURRED LITIGATION EXPENSES SHOULD BE APPROVED ............................................................................. 14 POINT III PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE AWARDED THEIR REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 78U-4(a)(4) ........................................................................... 15 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17 i Case 1:16-cv-00292-LPS-CJB Document 194 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 6367 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc., 50 F.3d 1204 (3d Cir. 1995)...................................................................................................... 18 Arbuthnot v. Pierson, 607 Fed. Appx. 73 (2d Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 15 Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 310 (1985) ............................................................................................................ 3 Blofstein v. Michael’s Family Rest., Inc., 2019 WL 3288048 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2019) ............................................................................. 17 Bodnar v. Bank of Amer., N.A., 2016 WL 4582084 (E.D. Pa. 2016) .......................................................................................... 17 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) ................................................................................................................ 2, 3 City of Providence v. Aeropostale, Inc., 2014 WL 1883494 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2014) ............................................................................ 15 Dickerson v. York Int’l Corp., 2017 WL 3601948 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2017) .......................................................................... 17 Elkin v. Walter Investment Mgmt. Corp., 2018 WL 8951073 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2018) ..................................................................... 14, 20 Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................... 2 Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2000)............................................................................................ 1, 2, 4, 5 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 5 In re Aetna Inc. Sec. Litig., 2001 WL 20928 (E.D. Pa. 2001) .............................................................................................. 17 ii Case 1:16-cv-00292-LPS-CJB Document 194 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 6368 In re Amer. Bus. Finan. Servs. Inc. Noteholders Litig., 2008 WL 4974782 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2008) ........................................................................... 18 In re AremisSoft Corp. Sec. Litig., 210 F.R.D. 109 (D.N.J. 2002) ............................................................................................... 6, 18 In re AT&T Corp. Sec. Litig., 455 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2006)........................................................................................................ 4 In re Cendant Corp. Litig. (“Cendant I”), 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001).................................................................................................. 4, 15 In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig (“Cendant II”), 404 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2005).............................................................................................. 2, 4, 15 In re CIGNA Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 2071898 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007) ............................................................................... 3 In re Corel Corp. Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ........................................................................................ 14 In re Datatec Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 4225828 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2007) .......................................................................... 8, 13 In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Sec. & Deriv. Litig., 2015 WL 6971424 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2015) ............................................................................ 15 In re Genta Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 2229843 (D.N.J. May 28, 2008) ................................................................................. 7 In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)........................................................................................................ 13 In re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., Sec. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 166 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2000) ............................................................................... 7, 10 In re Lucent Techs., Inc., Sec. Litig., 327 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.N.J. 2004) ........................................................................................... 22 In re Merck & Co., Inc., Vytorin Erisa Litig., 2010 WL 547613 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2010) ................................................................................... 13 In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., No. 03-cv-8264 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013) .......................................................................................................... 15 iii Case 1:16-cv-00292-LPS-CJB Document 194 Filed 04/30/21 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 6369 In re Par Pharm. Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 3930091 (D.N.J. July 29, 2013) ................................................................................ 21 In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998)........................................................................................................ 3 In re Ravisent Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 906361 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2005) .............................................................................. 14 In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 362 F. Supp. 2d 587 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ........................................................................................ 17 In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................ 3 In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transp. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 9447623 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2008) ................................................................................. 20 In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 5505744 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2013)............................................................................ 19, 20 In re Valeant Pharm. Intl., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 3166456 (D.N.J.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages25 Page
-
File Size-