Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for an Award Of

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for an Award Of

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.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    25 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us