Exhibit No. C - Compedium of Recent Fee Awards

     [||ca2a2813-c316-4101-b4a3-581338df7bc6||] Plaintiffs? Exhibit No. C 

COMPEDIUM OF RECENT FEE AWARDS 



A COMPENDIUM OF ILLUSTRATIVE RECENT FEE ALLOWANCES 

Case 

Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Anaconda 

Recovery 

American Brass Co., 47 F.R.D, 557 

-{E.D. Pa. 1980) 

Neuman v. Electronic Specialty Co., 

CCH Sec. L. Bep. "70~'71'¢ 52,955 

{X.D. 111. 1871) 

Il¥inois v. Harper and Row 
Publishers, Ine., 55 F.B.D. 221 
{N.D. 111, 1972) 

Percodani v. Riker-Maxson Corp.; 
CCH Sec, L. Bep. '71-'72 4 93,337 

(S.D.N.¥Y. 1872) 

Cannon Vv. Texas Gulf Sulphur, 
1873 CCH Sec, L, Rep. 4 94,110 
{(S.D.N.Y.i 1973) 

Colson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 
CCH Trade Cases, § 74,785 (N.D. 

111.%41972) 

Donson Stores, Inc. v. American 

Bakeries Co., CCH Trade Cases 
{74,691 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 

$22,175,000 

$1.2 million 

$3,213,287 - 1972 

pre 1972 - 
$3,461,628 

$3.2 million 

$2.7 million 
plus interest 
of $100,000 

$5,176,386 

$1,225,000 

Fees Awarded 

35.5 million. 

$270,000 

$475,000 

pre 1972 
$662,000 

approx 

$640,000 

$585,000 

$950,000 

$200,000 

Fees Awarded as 

Percentage of Recovery 

25% of recovery, except 
15% of $1 million 
recovered by City of 

New York 

22.5% 

14.4% - 1972 
16.2% - pre 1972 

approx 20% 

51.7% 

18.5% 

16.3% 



Case 

Dr. Clifford Porter Powell for use 
and benefit of Gulf Life Holding 
Company v. E. Grant Fitts, et al, 
CA 3-4004-A (Estes, C.J.) (N.D. 
Tex. 1971) 

A. L. Garner, et al v. Rick 
Wolfinbarger, et al, CA 6366-70-P 
(Bittman, J.) (S.D. Ala. 1973) 

Pischer, et al yv, WOlrfinbarger, et al, 
Garner v. Withrow, et al, SEC v, 1i7C; 
etal, CA 881%, etc, (Gordon, J.) 
(%.D. Ry. 1972) 

po 
8 

Schlesinger v, Wallace, 1973 CCH Sec. 
L. Bep, § 84,088 (NsD. Ala. 1973) 

yilllam EB. Mintz, et al v. BTNB, 

CA 71-731 (Lynne J. and Pointer, J.) 
{(X.D. Alan. 1973) 

William E. Mintz, .et al v. First 

National Bank, CA 71-732 (Lynne, J. 
and ‘Pointer, J.Y (N.D. Ala. 1973) 

The Cast Iron Pipe Cases, CA 71-516 
(Pointer, J.) (N.D, Ala. 1973) 

Partain v. First National Bank of 

Montgomery, CA 3419-N (Johnson, J.) 
(N.D. Ala. 1973) 

Recovery 

$1,300,000 

$703,629 and 

surrender of 

$1,100, 000 
(approx) 

Estimated value 

cash, real estate, 
Coastal States 

assumption of 
liability 
$1,500,000 

$2,179,135 

$625,676 

$1,700,000 

$400,000 

. stock in company 
- by settling defs. 

> 

Fees Awarded 

Fees Awarded as 
Percentage of Recovery 

R
a
 

-
 
a
d
 

“
i
g
h
 

C
A
L
A
N
 

a
t
 

ARI
A 
Y
E
T
 

o
v
 

R
P
 

i
)
 T
o
n
 
h
e
a
d
y
 

$262,000 

$165,000 

$350,000 

$350,000 

$435,827 

$130,535 

$327,079.16 

$100,000 

20% 

23.45% 

31.8% 

23.3% 

20% 

20% 

20% 

25% 

Ey
 

fo
ot
 

o
A
 

r
l
 a
a
 



Case 

Griffin v. First National Bank
 

of Mobile, CA 6300-71-P 

(M.D. Ala. 1973) 

Steelroath v. American National 

Bank & Trust Company, : 

CA 6799-71-P (M.D. Ala. 1973) 

Detroit v. Grinell Corp., 1973-1 

Trade Cases. § 14,341 (S.D.N.Y, 

1972) 

Philadelphia Housing Authority 

v ~ Am. Radiation & Standard 

Sanitary corp., 322 F. Supp. 834 

(B.D. Pa. 1871); aff'd. 453 7.24 

30 (38 Cir. 1871) 

Quirke v. Chessie Corp., CCH 

Ecc. L. hep. 4 94,346.(S5.D.N.Y. 

1974) 

The New Jersey Gasoline Cases 

(O.N.J. 1873) 

Feder v. Harrington, 58 F.R.D. 171 

(B.D.%.2.) 

Recovery 

$752,592 

(approx) 

. $10 million 

$2 million 

$2,522,860 

$29,875,000 

$630,000 

Fees Awarded 

$185,425.55 

$81,306.72 

$1,500,000 

approx 
$470,000 

$440,000 

$6,111,000" 

$150,000 

Fees Awarded as - 

Percentage of Recovery 

24.63% 

24.6% 

15% 

25% after expenses 

deducted from fund 

30% of one class = 

$1,760,000 

25% of another class 

$918,000 

$3,433,000 from third 

class 

24% 

i 
A
L
A
N
A
,
 
A
Y
 

ah 
Wh
 

OV
 N

a 
A 
R
H
 
£
0
,
 

St 
M
I
 
B
a
 



: 
Fees Awarded as ; i 

Case : . Recovery Fees Awarded Percentage of Recovery 

o
e
 A
 

Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 1973 $10,744,000 $1,600,000 15% 

Cei-Sec. L., Rep. $ 97,185 (X.D.N.Y. [+accountants = [+ 3% for accountants] 

1973) 
fees] 

$1,600,000 : $400,000 25% 

5
 

fo
 
Y
o
y
o
 

%
 

3 
A 

: 

e
i
 

i
 J

F 
IR 

W
Y
 
F
a
r
a
 

A
 

A
,
 

¥ 7
 

i 
=
 

o
e
 

In the matter of Brown Company 
| 

Securities Litigation, '72-'73 
: bos 

(Ch See. L.. Bep. 4 53,751 {(8.D.X.Y.) 
Sg 

Farmington DowelProds. Co. Vv. $109,000 before $194,000 More than 100% of 

é® Forster Mig. Co., 421 F.24 6 trebling single damages uh 

(Ist Cir. 1969) RE 

Gossner v. Cache Valley Dairy $30,000 before $72,500 More than 100% of ! 

ASs'n., 307 F. Supp. 1080 trebling single damages Y 

(D. Utah 1970) 
; 

Pacific Coast Agricultural Export $238.704 + $278,123.10 20% : § 

ss'n.. v. Bunz .st ‘Growers, lnc,, 2,363 before x 

1973-1 Trade Cases { 74,523 (N.D. trebling 
7d 

Cal. 1973) (Renfrew, J.) 
Late 

Epstein v. Weiss, '70-'71 CCH $1 million - $300,000 uO Tn 

Bee. L. hep. © 02,9338 (2.0. la. 1570) He 

Schlusselberg v. Keystone $1,750,000 $445,000 25.4% - be Sn 

» Custodian Funds, Inc., 1973 CCH wot | 
Bec. L. Beep, ¥ 93,901 (S.D.N.Y, 1973) Ce fast 

Kurach v. Weissman (Dreyfus) S.D.N.Y. $1,000,000 $225,000 22.5% Era 

68 Civ. 1540 (McLean, J. 1971) 
ites 

Norte v. Huffines (Defiance Industries)$4,355,595 $806,000 - attys 18.2% ru 

SE D.N.Y. 62 Civ, 3390 (Monsfield, Jd. $200,000 - accts 

1871) : 

Mersay v. First Republic Corp., $333;000 =. $70,000 21% 

1968 CCH ¢ 92,304 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (incl. costs) 

$2,000 1% 



Case 

Heilbrunn v. Hanover Equities Corp., 

BS Civ, 2282 (S.0.N.Y¥. 1869) 

Borak v. J. 1, Cage Co., 56 Civ. 

387 (R.0, Wisc, Apr. 1, 1970) 

[prior opinion 377 U.S. 426 

(1964)] 

Percodani v. Riker-Maxson Corp., 

CCH § 93,337 (S.D.N.Y. 1072); 

modification denied CCH ¢ 93,455 

(S.D. N.Y, 1872) [prior opinions: 

$1.8 million settlement rejected, 

CCH 4.93.,153 (S8.D.R.Y, 19070) = 

Eg FP.R.DZ 473; $3.2 million settle- 

ment approved, CCH ¢ 93,153 (S.D.N.Y. 

1971) 

Siegal v. Realty Equities, CCH Sec. 

i hep. 70% 04,100 (B.D.N.Y., 
July 30, 1973) 

Spillane v. Conway, '72-'73 CCH 

Sec. Li. Rep. 4 93,5668, CCH Sec. 

L. Reps (S.D.N.Y,. 1972) 

Rosenfeld v. Black, '72-'73 CCH 

Sec. L. nep. Y 93,635 (S.D.X.Y. 

1972) 

Jamison v. Barr, 69 Civ. 2795 

(5. D.R.Y. 1970) (Tenney, Jd.) 

Recovery 

$460,000 
(options) 

$350,000 

$3,200,000 

$625,000 

$120,000: °° 
(immediate benefit) 
$104,000 
(additional 
possible benefit) 

$1 million 

$600,000 

Fees Awarded 

$85,000 
$3,500 

$198,000 

$445,000 
$45,000 
$5,000 
$75,000 
$80,000 
$650,000 

$160,000 

$60,000 

$250,000 

$175,000 

Fees Awarded as 

Percentage of Recovery 

17% 
1% 

57% 

14% 
1% 

2% 
2.5% 
25% in stock 

25.6% 

20 to 26.4% 

25% 

20.9% 



a 
PE 

[RE 
Fees Awarded as 5 fn BR 

Case 
‘Recovery Fees Awarded Percentage of Recovery 

pL 

White v. Auerbach, 1973 CCH Sec. $2 million $300,000 15% 
i 

I Rob. § DO, 017 (3.D.N.¥. 1073) 
4; 

Newman v. Stein, 58 F.R.D. 540 $5 million $750,000 15% 

(8. 0:N%.Y., 19273) 

Stull v. Kaymarg Consolidated Corp., $440,000 $142.000 . 32.3% 

» 160-'70 CCH Sec. L. Rep. { 92,508 

(S.D.N.Y. 1969) 

fischer v, Kletz, 65 Civ. 737 $1 million $210,000 21% 

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1971) 
[Co. in Ch. X] 

-” 

Volvovitz v. VIR, Inc., 1971 CCH. $400,000 $75,000 19% (in installments) 

85.903 (8.0.N.1. 1071) leo, ; 
in precarious financial condition] 

Entel v. Guilden, S.D.X.Y. | $120,000 $32,000 26% 

63 Civ. 788 (1966) 



| * RL 

« Hornstein, Problems of PYrocedure in or 2h ir oy 

{ Stockholders Perivatiy. Suits de LINER RR 

42 Colum IL, Rev 574 (1942) 

PROBLEMS OF PROCEDURE 587 \ 

Am want ol 
counscl Jee 

=] esulling and other 

bengjit to the co: apense- Kalio fo Judge 
Title of cose Year corporation Pa benejit rakiny award 

‘llo v. New Colenial Ice Co. [cettle- : 
ment at trial) 1939 § 16,000 § 3,500 AA Hefstadter, J. 

a Artin v. United Standard Qil-Fund 
of America [cettlement before rial) 193Y 25,000 3,500 15% Mandelbaum, J. 

maven ©. Atlas Cerp. {Ceenrit'rs-Al- 
ied Corp.) [seitloment at trial) 1939 1,500,000  35S,000 24% McCook, J. 

treichier  v. Utility and Industrial 
Corp. [ecttlersent before trial] 1040 875,0007 96,500 2715 Bondy, J. 

widsen v. Rodnon (Silver Red Stores, App. Div, 
Ine.) [judgment after trial] 1041 £8,935 2,500 28% 2d Dey:t. 

ason v. Richardsen (Columbia Droad- 
casting Syste, Ine.) [judgment AS of App. Div. : 
after trial) 1941 32,000 7,500 23% 1st Dept. 

weman %. Happiness Candy Siores, 
Ine. [scttleracne during trial before 
referee appointed by consent] 1941 300,0007 95,360 32% McGoldrick, J. 

twin v. Allen (Guaranty Trust Co.) . 
[setilement after interlocutory judg- 
ment] 1941 750,000 282,500 3712% Shientag, J. 

“hen v. MacFadden (Mactadden Pub- . ’ 
lications, Inc.) .[setilement before ‘ 
trial) 1941 - 550,000 119,663 23% Pecora, J. 

eller v. Boylan (American Tobacco 2 
Co.) [eettlement after interlocutory © : 
judgment) 1941 1,809,935 628,000 3434 Collins, J. 

iitove v. Morrow (Hecker Products : i 
Corp.) [scitlement before trial) 1941 125,000 © 42.546 34% Koch, J. 

eber v. Empire Power~Corp. [seftle- 
ment at trial) 1041 151,200 47,649 31%% Eder, J. 

~erdinski v Bent (Bethlehem Steel i 
Corp.) [judgment after trial) 1941 1,105,821 330,856 30% Valente, J. 

tay v. Eurco, Ine. [settlement at 
trial) 1942 200,000 50,000 25% Rosenman, J. Mr 

arony v. Applegate (New York Transit i 
Co.) [settlement at trial] 1942 11,409 3,500" 3015% Steuer, J. 

ruckerman v. Harbord (Radio Carp. 
of America) [scttlement ofier before Now 
trial) pending 1,000,000 Levy, J. 

eiss v. General Inv. Corp. [settlement Now 
offer at trial] pending 1,375,000 McCook, J. 

vy v. Feinberg (American Beverage 
Corp.) [interiocutery judgment afer Appeal . 
trial) peuding Renvenga, J. 

pach v., Nasewcu & Suffolk Lighting 
Co. (Queens Borough Gas & Elec. 
Co.) [interlocutory judgment after Appeal 
trial] pending McGarey, J 

;irner v. American Metal Co.,, Lim. Appeal : 
[interlocutory judgment ufter trial] pending Shientag, J. 

§ And non-cash considerations. 

fore it will do so, (1) the court itself hears testimony on the merits, 

nless it has already done so during the course of a trial,®® or (R) it 
fers the question of the adequacy and reasonableness of the settlement 

» a referee for a judicial inquiry into the question of whether the pro- 

sed settlement is in the best interests of the corporation,® or (3) it 

58. Gray wv. 3urco, Inc, N. Y. Co. Clerk's Index No. 14912/1938; Litwin v. 
llen, N. Y. Co. Clerk’s Index No. 2418/1938. 

59. Such reference was ordered in six of ihe cases listed in the table printed in 
12 ext. 

AACR es Pr El i) ht debe 2 rT a 5 yy rt Wile en TU ; 

SF : 3 va 5 iv el 



. » 

i! Hornstein, Thé&' Counse. Jee in | 

AT Stockholders Derivative Suits ais, 

FRR ae 39 Colum L Rev 784 (1939) 

\ 

814 COLUMEBLA LAW REVIEW 

A state like New York, which has had a sufficiently large number 

of cases, affords the best field for study. In 1883, immediately aft.r 

the Supreme Court of the United States first enunciated the principle. 

in Trustees v. Greenough, the New York Court of Appeals said: “\\- 

need not consider how far these adjudications . . . would be follows 

by us in similar cases.”*¥® In 1015, the same court per Cardozo, J., 
ot 

said: “The plaintiff rendered services of value, which the corporation 

has appropriated without requital. The plastic remedy of an equitahl: 

lien is adequate in such a case to prevent a failure of justice.”!*® The 

following has been the record in New York since then 2% 

: Amount of ; 

N Resulting counsel fee 
benefit to tne end other Ratio to Judge or refers: 

Title of case Year corperction compensaiion beret makin? cuers 

Atwater v. Elkhorn Valley Coal- 
Land Co. 1918 $ 5,600. $ 674. 129%, Lehman, ]. 

*Adams v. Rockefeller (N. Y. N. 
H.& HH. RAR) 1920 2,500,000. 833,333.33 334% Hough, J. 

Godley v. Crandall & Godley Co. 1922 369,410.02 42,505.81 113% Finch, J. 

Jacobi v. Normandie Nat. Securi- 
ties Corp. 1932 65,000. 27,500. 429% Glennon, J. 

Gallin v. National City Bank 1935 1,844,642.21 472,500. 23%. Dore, ). 

Wilkay v. Goldman Sachs Trading 
Corp. 1935 385,000. 175,000. 459% Sce note 192 

it Steinberg v. Mitchell (Electric 
Bond and Share Co.) 1936 400,000. 150,000. 37349 Laughlin, Refer 

Ati Earl v. Brewer (Standard Furniture 
fw Co.) 1936 45,503.16 14,070.27 319% Waters, Referee 

Bookbinder v. Chase Nat. Bank 1937 2,500,000. 625,000. 25%, Yammer, J. 

Benedict v. Seagrave (Insuran- * 

: shares Corp. of Del.) 1937 723,500. 239,605.03 3314% Valente, J. 

Adams v. Lang (Crocker-\Wheeler : : 

: Electric Mig. Co.) 1938 345,000. 86,750. , 25% McGoldrick, j. 

National Bondheclders v. Joyce : : 

(National Surety Co.) 1938  1,375,0C0, ~~ 275,000. 20% McCook, J. 

*Phillips v. Cities Service Co. 1938 1,250,000. 262,500. 21¢; Clancy, J. 

Said v. Eitington Schild Co., Inc. 1939 100,000. 23,000. 239, McLauzhlia, J. 

Epstein v. Schenck (Loews, Inc.) 1939 $43.434.94 191,867.06 359, Valente, J. 

ville Shingle Co., 179 Mich. 42, 146 N.W. 212 (1914). In numerous other cas. 

particularly in New York, awards lo plaintiffs’ counsel for expenses included 

unspecified compensation to accountants paid or incurred. Bookbinder v. Ch- 

Nat. Bank, N.Y. L.J., June 23, 1937, p. 3166, col. 7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co, Spec, 

Pt. 111, Hammer, J.), N.Y. Co. Clk's Index No. 4266571933, is iliustrative. ; 

» Matter of Attorney General v. N. A. Life Ins. Co, 91 N. Y. 37; 63 (1883 

W GS oeaherr v. Van Meter, 215 N.Y. 548, 532, 109 NX. E. 62%, 626 (191° 

The court distinauished its earlier decision in Matter ot Meighan, 182 N.Y. 

75 N.E. 1131 (1903), afi’g, 106 App. Div. 399, 94 N.Y, Supp. 1153. (1st D3 

1905), which had declined to give the attorney for the complainant in a sto: 

holder's derivative action a statutory lien for his compensation. Moreover, it ¢ 

pressly approved the action of the federal courts which, in the same A/cighan c 

had awarded the same attorney compensation and an equity lien therefor. 
Meig' 

v. American Grass Twine Co., 151 Ved. 346 (C.C. A. 2d, 1907). 
: 

®t Theluded in this table aud identified by an asterisk ave two federal cases 

the New York district. Where the name of the nominal corporate detend 

doc. not appear in the title it has been added in parentheses. The figures have be 

taken directly from the record on appeal or the orixinal court records. 

#? \Wilkay v. Goldman Sachs, N.Y. Co. Clk's Index No. 3363/1932. 
Both 

3 amount of the settlement and the amount of counsel fee were determinad by ag « 

BR RR re Ea IR SR MEO ATT Lan AL (Lt Ae ial a ia HG Ca ee ei Fal SATE Oo CEL LIE, WBROINTILTE NORA LAN in FOAKAGU infpels 3 206 00 Quy 

. » 

TL TTI TN I SA Rie 
Gal 30. A 4 “¥ 5 . AEE ow 

{ Gy wo we 4 “ "id 4 

SA Ng FA 
pa ~ do rd, i AUN 

RE AR ONT 
Nog



i. Hornstein, New Aspe ss of 

Stockholders Deriva..ve Suits A 
47 Colum L Rev 1 (1947) 

STOCKHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUITS 0
 

nsive opinion, held that the complaint stated a cause of action, ar
d that, if the 

legations were true, the majority stockholder was accountable to class 

ctockholders who had turned in their stock for redemption as 
well as to 

ose who had not, and that the complainant stockholder could main
tain a 

ass suit on behalf of himself and of all other class A stockholders 

: both categories. The opinion is a significant milestone on the road of 

Janagement-stockholder relationship. ¢ 

III. TERMINATION OF SUITS 

The ruling of the New York Court of Appeals that the “secur
ity for ex- 

enses” statute is, in any event, not retroactive, has made
 possible continued 

tudy of the cases which, begun before the statute was enac
ted, have termi- 

ated in a benefit to the corporation. The following tables, bringing up to 

late earlier lists,” record judgments after trial, interlocutory or final, and 

ums paid on settlements submitted to the court for approval,
 before, at, or 

fer tria}:?? . » 

SUITS INVOLVING CLOSELY-HELD CORPORATIONS 

Amount of 
. : counsel fee 

by 3 Resulting end olker 

: : * 2 benefit Lo the com pensa- Ratio fo Judge 

Title of case . Year corporation tion benefit making oword 

Sreenebaum Vv. Ripley (International 
Oddities, Inc.) [judgment alter trial} 1942 $ 3,547 $ 1,418 40%  Benvenga, J. 

Lyons v. O'Brien Brothers Sand & Gravel 
Y * : 4 

Corp. (Hudson River Stone Corp.) : 

[settlemnent before trial] 1942 75,000 20,000 279% Valente, J. 

deburg v. Weisbecker (Charles Weis- 
becker, 2 corporation) [scttlement at 
trial} 1942 - 20,0007 17,212 : Valente, J. - 

Baker v. Cohn (Tubular Textile Mach. 
App. Div. 

Corp.) [judgment after trial] 1943 71,513 27,00074 38% 1st Dept. 

Drivas v. Lekas (Lekes & Drivas, Inc.) 
{judgment after trial] 1944 5.650 2,825 S0% F.E. Johnson, J. 

Klein v. Klein's Outlet, Inc. [judgment 

after trial] 1945 29,915 see note’ 209, Shientag, J. 

Masholie v. Salvator (D. J. Salvator, Inc. 
: 

end Jamaica Concrete Corp.) [juZg- 
App. Div. 

ment after trial] 1945 116,577 see note’ 24 Dept. 

Atkinson v. The McCabe Hanger Mfg. Co. ; +3 ! 

[judgment after trial] 1946 1,469 2,00077 Hammer, J. 

71. Hornstein, The Counsel Fee in Stockholder’s Derivative Suits (1939) 39 

CoLUNBIA LAW Rev. 784, at 814; Hornstein, supra note 11,
 at 587. 

72. Included in this table and identified by an asterisk are two fede
ral cases in the 

New York district. \Where the name of the nomi
nal corporate defendant docs not appear 

in the title it has been added in parentheses. A case settled at
 the opening of trial is listed 

as “settlement before trial” The year given is that of the order or judgment approving 

the settlement. The figures have been taken directly from a record on appeal or the 

original court records. When a judgment after trial is settled for a lesser sum, the latter 

figure, being the final one, is the figure used. The column headed “amount of cou
nsel fee 

and other compensation” includes counsel fee, accounta
nts’ fees, and other disbursements, 

excluding referee's fees. Disbursements are not set forth
 separately, because in many cases 

the court's order does not allocate the award for d
isbursements separately, but allots a 

total sum to counsel “to 1aclude disbursements.” : 

93. And non-cash benefits, Sichurg v. Weishecker,
 Sup. Ct, N. Y. Co. Clerk's Index 

No. 13285/1940. 
74. The appellate division figures appear in the table.

 Both the money judgment and 

the counsel fce award were higher in the trial
 court. Baker v. Cohn, 42 N. Y. S.{24) 159 

(Sup. Ct. 1942), miod., 266 App. Div. 715, 40 N. Y
. S.(2d) 623 (1st Dep't 1943), aj’d, 292 

N. VY. 570, 54 N. E.(2d) 689 (1944). 

. 

.w RE ie Neen: 

’ 

fine 

: 
Ju 

Be att Tn RP fore . v » ARTA 
—(? ek 



Po a 

¢ 

bh 
) 

Wr Last boi Baha 0 Ka I 20S suede RTI a aa BAL AL WES UD CGE A 16320 SAK cde aly the an 8 

Ap — ny 
i atts Ti 83 Pour ait il a A ne RN 

SRO al netiamiedd ve ded THN es a Me SARL A NE 

a
 

| 

: 

q 

v3 

et 

na Fork 

a 5 

4 AdaLibd 
. >) 

16 | COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 

SUITS INVOLVING WIDELY-HELD CORPORATIONS 

Amount of 
counsel fee 

Resulting and other 
: benefit lo the compensa- Retio to Judge 5 Tile of case Year corporction tion benefit making award 

a Berger v. Allen (Empire Trust Co.) [set- 
5 tlement before trial 1942 § 25,000 S$ 7,200 30% Hooley, J. 
gE Bing v. Consolidated Oil Corp. [settlement 
3 at trial) 1942 675,000 171,000 25% Collins, J. 
4 Druckerman v. Harbord (Radio Corp. of 
fe America) (settlement at trial) 1942 1,000,000 263,144 26%39 Levy, J. ih 5 Kahn v, Fifth Ave. Coach Co. (Omnibus 

. 3 Corporation) [settlement before trial} 1942 see noted 118,566 Miller, J. 
5 Neuberger v. Barrett (Union Carbide & tv 3.3 SRT Carbon Corp.) (settlement before trial] 1942 (653,744)79 200,000 309%, Rosenman, J. 

Weiss v. General Investment Corp. [settle- . p ment at trial) 1942 1,375,000 432,500 313% McCook, J. 
*Winkelman v. General Motors Corp, 4 

[settletnent after trial and written 
opinion in favor of complainants) 1942 4,500,000 795,000 1734%  Leibell, J. 

Bysheim v. Miranda (Brewster Aeronauti- 
cal Corp.) [settlement at trial) 1943  (1,800,000)s0 120,000 62§% Bernstein, J. 

Corash v. The Texas Corporation (Indian 
Refining Co.) [settlement before trial] 1943 (7,000,000)81 546,262 8% Valente, J. 

Hagenbuch v. American Beverage Corp. : 
[settlement before trial] 1943 50,000 13,000s3 26% Benvenga, J. 

Jules Mar, Inc. v. Wynegar (Commercial 
Credit Co.) [settlement at trial] 1943 60,000 20,083 3314% . Collings, J. 

Table continnied on next page 

75. The judgment awarded to complainant for her counsel fee “an amount equal to 
- twenty per cent of any sum recovered under this judgment,” plus $500 for the expense of 

accountants. Klein v. Klein's Outlet, Inc., Sup. Ct, N. Y. Co. Clerk's Index No. 6142/1949, 
aff'd, N. Y. L. J., Oct. 19, 1946, p. 949, col. I (App. Div., 1st Dep't 1946). 

. 76. The judgment was believed uncollectible. The judgment awarded to complainant 
for<-her counsel fee a sum cqual to 30% of any monies cotlected under the judgment. 
Masholie v. Salvator, 182 Misc. 523, 46 N. Y. S.(2d) 596 (Sup. Ct. 1944). On appeal this « Li 

was modified by striking out the contingent sum allowed, and “by providing instead that 
said plaintifi shall have the right to apply further for such allowance upon cstablishing the 

@ benefits derived by the corporations from such services.” 269 App. Div. 846, 55 XN. Y. 
S.(2d) 395, 395 (2d Dep't 1945). 

77. The Court ordered the third party defendant to pay the corporation $1,469.69 for 
the damages it had sustained, and an additional $2,600 for the counsel fee and disburse- 
ments awarded to complainant for procuring the recovery. Atkinson v. McCabe Hanger 
Mfg. Co. N. Y. L. J., June 28, 1916, p. 2547, col. 3 (Sup. Ct.). : 

78. Stockholders’ derivative suits against a majority stockholder (Omnibus Corpora- 
tion) were settled by offering the alternative of cash or stock in Omnibus Corporation to 
stockholders of the corporation on whose behalf suit had been instituted. This settlement 
was not the one proposed in Kahn v. Fifth Ave. Coach Co., N. Y. L. J., Nov. I, 1941, p. 
1329, col. 1 (Sup. Ct.), wherein the Hon. Samuel Scabury was appointed referee. The 
referee disapproved the offer and his report was confirmed. A more liberal offer was then 
made, notice thereof was mailed to all stockholders, no opposition appeared, aud on the 
basis of this second offer, a settlement was approved by the court. N. Y. L. J... Oct. 29, 
1942, 1. 1240, col. 5 (Sup. Ct.). . 

79. No fund was produced ; the settlement effected changes in the retirement plan, and 
saved the corporation $653,744.72. The court held this figure to be the value of the benefit 
to the corporation. Neuberger v. Barrett, 180 Misc.- 222, 39 N. Y. S.(2d) 575 (Sup. Ct. 
1942). 

80. No fund was produced; the suit resulted in defendants’ cancelling for $300,000 o 
claimi against the corporation amounting to $2,300,000. Bysheim v. Miranda, 45 N. Y. 
S.(2d) 473 (Sup. Ct. 1943). 

81. Stockholders’ derivative suits against a majority stockholder were settled by the 
latter issuing its own stock to stockholders of the corporation on whose behalf suit had 

been instituted. “Tt was shown that to arrive at the 4 to 1 tio on the basis solely of 
relative book values of the stock of Indian and Texas, approximately $7,000,600 for the 
lawsuit would have to be ardded to Indian's assets.” Corash v. Texas Corp, N. Y. L. J., 
March 2, 1943, p. 830, col. 6 (Sup. Ct.). 

82. Counsel fee was agreed upon as part of the settlement in advance of submission to 
court, which then approved the entire settlement. Hagenbuch v. American Beverage Coip, 
Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. Clerk’s Index No. 14931 /1942, 

2 
> 
a
 

-.
 

" 
L
e
n
 
o
d
 

P
R
 

3 
4 

3 
a
 

. Em . _ i PE Cabal 30 » Pa SURACE For 2S SF NE RAS SL SE Hue oe ry FR or 2 RPh 

1 3 : ; ‘ bev 4 it etal gata ‘ = it . A 

. 

5 TN Say Co Ro RR TOIT Cl Nhe Mh hag i ah Sad Wl RAL HI 
. 



Lg » 

oi 
FS 

ech seri d Sue SEN A An Ls et AR pA Fis Cain RF pe. RISUOv FV) TE, SPAY didi vPEL Se AINE VR Al A Aorta whe nfs Th 

“No 

STOCKHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT
S 17 

Seley 

SUITS INVOLVING WIDELY-HELD 
CORPORATIONS (cont) = Le amas Erg a a ht 

Amniount of 
WE 3 fn » In, ry : : 

counsel fee > : . tna! 5d . SE 

Resulting and other 
oi La : 

benefit to the compensa- Ratio fo Judge SE o : 

Title of case Year corporciion {son benefit making coward 
: ei he i, 3 : 

Posen v. Cowdin (Universal Pictures 
; Fon 

Corp.) [settlement before trial] 1943  (2,000,000)83 520,000 25% Collins, J. 
tn 

Roth v. Abrons (General Realty & Utili- 

ties Corp.) [settlement at trial] 1943 160,000 25,500 16% Valente, J. 

Sarasohn v. Andrew Jergens Co. (Wood- 

- 

bury Company) {settlement before 
: 

trial} 1943 sec notes 45,000 21% Collins, J. 

Smith v. Happiness Candy Stores, Inc. 
z it 

[settlement before trial] 1943 75,000 23.215 319, Hecht, J. 

45molowe v. Delendo Corp. [judgment 
: 

after trial} ; 1943 18,894 3,000 16S) Bright, J. 

Weiss v. Coe (Brooklyn Union Gas Co.) 

[judgment after trial] 1943 476,549 176,661 37% Valente, J. 

Baumgold v. Builey {Title Guarantee and 
g 

Trust Co.) [settlement before trial] 1044 £0,000 30,0600 31% % F.E. Johnson, J. 

Kalmanash v. Smith (Certainteed Prod- 
es 

ucts Corp.) [settlement before trial] 1944  (1,000,000)85 100,000 10% Kleinfeld, J. 
: 

Blank v. Sams (J. C. Penney Co.) [settle- 

. ment before trial] 1945 330,000 93,500 28% Church, J. 

Chelrob, Inc. v. Barrett [also sud. nom, 

Espach v. Nassau & Sufioik Ltg. Co) 
: ) 

(Queens Borough Gas & .Elec. Co.) : 

{judgment after trial] 1945 . 470,854 145,23788 31% C. A. Jobnson,J. 
Ebi ei ee 5 

Diamond v. Davis (U. S. Rubber Co.) : » Rit ga ey a 

{settloment at trial] 1945 see note 180,703 : Hammer, J. : rn TR A 

Garsson v. National Rubber Machinery 
; Fr LT v 

Co. [judgment after trial] 1945 gcc notes 15,000 Benvenga, J. 
; 

Johnson v. Western Union Telegraph Co. 
Send 

(Gold & Stock Telegraph Co.) [judg- 

a Rea 

ment after trial] : 1945 13,202,28089 200,000 13499 Valente, Js 
: J BL 

Levy v. Feinberg (Amcrican Beverage 
oa 

. 2 : 

Corp.) [settlement after judgment] 1945 10,261 4,500 40% Benvenga, J. : : ’ 

Shanik v. Empire Power Corp. [judgment 
appeal, ; Su Ya - rN - 

after trial) 1946 4,261,684 pending . Schreiber, J. © Te o 

Shielcrawt v. Mofictt (Corn Products Re- 
* iad 

fining Co.) [settlement before trial] 1946 204.3419 100,500 Botein, J. 
y . , 

..83. Stockholders’ derivative suits against a majority stockhelder were settled by : GH i ANE FEAR ok . 

merger of the two corporations and issuance of toc
k in the successor corporation to stock- 

irre EAL aS TE * 3 

holders of the corporation on whose behalf suit 
had been instituted. The court appears to 

. grr Eg rk : 

have valued the settlement zt $2,000,000. Posen 
v. Cowdin, N. Y. L. J., June 3, 1943, p. pid a lg Se 

2164, col. 6,-at p. 2165, col. 1 (Sup. Ct). + 2 4 - i Ph lhe MA ai 

84. The settlement was effected by the majority 
stockholders’ payment to the minority 

IE AST eb 2, be 

stockholders of £30,000. The court found this pa
yment equivalent to a recovery of $210,000 

: on a AH Ea 

by the corporation about to be dissolved. Sarasohn v. Andrew Jergens Co, 45: N. YX: AO TES RE Ft ante 

. 85. £100,000 cash and non-cash benefits, together valued by the Court at totalling x Loh [EE 

$1,000,000. Kalmanash v. Smith, N. Y. L. J., M
ay 13, 1944, p. 1809, col. 6 (Sup. Ct). 

“ 

86. Judgment for the plaintiff was reversed 
by the Appelate Division, and reinstated 

by the Court of Appeals. The judgment ha
d provided that the corporation Was to pay 

: 

plaintiffs’ counsel, etc, $125,237.55. Held, thi
s sum should be increased by. $20,000 to cov

er 
. 

the additional work necessarily involved in 
the appeals in protecting plaintiffs’ judgment. 

: 

Chelrob, Inc. v. Barrett [also sub. nom. Espac
h v. Nassau & Sufiolk Ltg. Co.] 185 Misc. : INT TY ; 

305, 56 N. Y. S.(2d) 628 (Sup. Ct. 1945), 
aff'd, 270 App. Div. 825, 60 N. Y. S.(2dy 

1 2 od, Pape Tl DART 

: 87. No fund was produced; the settlement 
effected changes in computation of bonus 

= eh Ra 

plan. The court sent to a referec 
the question of what allowance s

hould be made to the 
: Faas; 

complainants’ attorneys, and accepted the 
over-all amount recommended by the referee. 

- 

Diamond v. Davis, 62 N. Y. S.(2d) 175 (Sup. Ct. 
1945). ; : £3 = + 

88. Ouster of incompetent management. Gar
sson Vv. National Rubber Machinery Co., 

a nr Tn a ; 

Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. Clerk's Index No. 25826
/1939. 

AY pli a es Ea “5 

89. A stockholder of Gold & Stock 
Telegraph Co. successfully contended 

that, under Tar 

an 1881 lease, Western Union Telegraph Co. was 
obligated to pay income taxes, past and 

ba sre al agin 

present, assessed against Gold & Stock Tele
graph Co. Johnson v. Western Union Tel.

 Co., : Wa a aia he liy 

184 Misc. 728, 53 N. Y. S.(2d) 867 (Sup. Ct. 19
45). The figure given is the estimate of 

SCR ROT LR 

complainant's counsel. 
. : oF Tt Lea 

90. Trial lasted only two days; there wa
s only one issuc and that a question o

felaw. er Val res 

~ 91. And non-cash benefits from changes in administration of profit-sharing plan. EE dui lis en dr : 

Shielcrawt v. Moffett, Sup. Ct, N. Y. Co. 
Clerk's Index No. 14134/1940. 

i a a 

Pre 

et rn ALLY do aU dott li ed LNG Kt iid nA JER AE ROA Lr iocaions EARN 
hy Ld HRA LE 

« ~ Ay 
.¥ 



FOR TIE 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et 

Vv. 

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, et 

Id 

— 

\ 

1M THE UNITED STATES ‘DISTRICT? COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

oa 

al. 

Civ. No. 647-68 

\ Civ. No. S0-69 

STATE OF BREW JERSEY, et al., 

Ve. 

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, et 

McCLOSKEY & COMPANY, INC 

V. 

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, et 

YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF 

PHILADELPHIA, et al., 

V. 

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, et 

- 

COMFORT CAB, INC., 

i 

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, et 

YELLOW CAB OF DELAWARE, 

Ve. 

MERICAN OIL COMPANY, et 

ORDER 

31. 

weve -a8l., 

al. 

al. 

al. 

INC., 

2)... 

et=al., 

WITH RESPECT. TO 

‘
S
e
 

f
e
 

LX
) 

LL
] 

[2
] 

(Consolidated) 

Civ. No. 

Cav. No. 

Civ. No. 

civ. No. 

AND COSTS AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES 

po, 097 NE 

[X% NES 
Pht = 

. = 
; 

wg, S10 

N . a 

47-70 

93-70 

1320 

1374~ 

72 

72 

= ¢ A oy ™ 

ERS 

et TERRE Fa ea :



STA os IN oP rors 1 ~ v \ 
N WW, 

| 

TRY i» DIS 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF wim 'LVANIA 

CELERY GOLDSTEIN, et al., g 
Plointis fis 

ELI LASTICK 
CHARLES E. DUNALIF : : 

.Intervenors CLASS ACTION: 

vs. CIVIL ACTION 3 

ALODEX CORPORATION, et al. NO. 71-1857 
Defendants and : a 

Thizd-Party 
Plaintiffs . 

vs. oF 2 

HARRIS, KERR, FORSTER & : 
COMPANY 

Third-Party - 
Defendant / 

JOSEFA 1, CLEMIFR, ar al. : 
Plaintiffs CLASS ACTION 

vs. CIVIL ACTION 

ALDDEX CORPORATION NO. 72-1018 

Defendant : 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

BRODERICK, J. DECEMBER 7, 1973 

Presently before the Court in these two class action se- 

eurities cases are: (1) the 

for approval of a settlament 

of Civil Procedures; (2) the De 

and costs to counsel for the cl 

(3) the application for costs 

class action representatives application 

pursuant to Rule 23{e), Federal Rules 

tition for an award of counsel {ces 

ass action representatives; and 

filed by the settlement committee. 



| 2 VN 

the award which a jury could conceivably determine to be the maxi- 

mum damages to which they would be entitled under the law. 

The attorneys' fee in this hats has boon approved by this 

Court on the basis of all the relevant factors heretofore ‘enumerated 

with much weight having been given to the outstanding results obs 

tained for the classes. We have taken into consideration the fact 

chat the fee as approved will provide adequate motivation for repre- 

sentation of classes. Although the Court has not based its approval 

upon the percentage of recovery, {twenty percent appears to be 

Clearly within the range of attorneys' fees awarded in other recent 

securities litigation settlements in this district and elscwhere.l/ 

: Case . Recovered Awvardnd Pevoaniane 

Cannon v. Texas Gulf $ 2,700,000 $ 2585.000 .. 20% 
Sulphur Co., CCH Fed. 
Sec, L. Rptr. 894113" 
{SDNY 1973){(Bonsal, J.) 

Siegel v. Realty Equi- 625,000 160,000 - 26% 
; ties Corporation of : uh 
New York, CCH Fed. Sec. 
Y.. Rpixy. $94,102 (SDNY 
1973) (icahon, J. 

In Re Your Seasons, 7,000,000 725,000 10% 
CCH. Fed, Sec, 1. Rptr. hs 
$94,052 (W.D. Okla. 
1973) (Thomsen, J.) 

Schlusselberg v. Key- 1,750,000 450,000 277 
stone Custodian Funds, 
Inc., CCH Fed. Sec. LL. 
ofr. 993,901 (Shy 
1973) (McMahon, J.) 

“Feder v, Harrington 630,000... 150,000 24%, S58 FRD 171 (SDNY 1972) 45 
(ticMahon, J.) . 

. LJ . 

br ng Sy 
RAY eA Wop Sw SI 
I a CIN { Fa hs ay 



a KR 

wb 

Ld \ * Ld id - [J After the above portion of this cpinion was written, we 

received a copy of the opinion in Lindy Bros. Builders v. Anerican 
* 

\ 

Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., Nos. 72-1647 and 48 (3d Cir. 

October 31, 1973). This Court has re-examined its approval of the 

fee in this case pursuant to the standards $0 clearly set forth 

by Chief Judge Seitz in Lindy Bros. Builders. In accordance with 

1-~continued/ Amount Fees : 
Case Recoverad Awarded Percentage 

Rosenfeld v. Black, $ 1,000,000 250,000 25% 
56 FRD 604 (SDNY 1972) 
(Gui fain, J.) 

Colonial Realty Corp. . 1,500,000 375,000: 25% 
Vv. Baldwin-Montrose : 
Chemical Corp., Civ, : | Si : 
No. 68-991 (E.D. Pa. 
"n i Re) § 43 §visy 

HPL a LU oy 1.21 ZB 

(Weiner, J.) 

Percodani v. Riker-Max- 3,200,000 650,000 20% 
Son, CCH Ped. Sec. L, | 
Rptr. 993,337 {SDXY 
3972) (Croake, 3.) 

Volvoviiz v, VIR, Inc. 400,000 75,000 19% 
CCH Fed. Sec. L. ., 
Rptr. $93,292 (SDNY BT 
Y971) (Tyler, J.) | Er for : 

City of Philadelphis 5,000,900 1,250,000 25% 
v. International Pipe : rs 
& Ceramics Corp., 
Civ, Bo. 73.008 
(E.D, Pa. June 30, 
1871) (Davis, J.) 

Monash v. Sigma Inatru~ ~~ 189,000 56,700 GR (1 1 
ments, Inc... Civ. No, : : fi 
10-875 (E.D, Pa. Avy, 30, 
1971) (Becker, J.) 

Epstein v. Weis, © 1,000,000 300,000 30% 
CCH Ped. Sec, L. Noty. = ¥; | | 
$92,938 (B.b. 1.9..1970) 
(Cassilery, J.) ; 



defendants. 

LJ As the Scécond Circuit pointed out in Alpine Pharmacy, Inc. 
x 

XN. Chas, Plizor & Co,, Inc., Nos. 332«54 {July 2, 1873): 

few would dispute the basic proposition that 
one whose labors produce a favorable result 
descrves adequate recompense. Such a notion 
is particularly applicable in the area of the 
antitrust class action which depends heavily 
on the moticn of the private attorney general 
as the vindicator of the public policy. See, 
6,0. Pormn Life Mufflers, Ine, v, Int'l Paris 
Lory. ,:. 392 U.8,:334 (1968), "In the absence 
of adequate attorneys' fee awards, many anti- 
trust actions would nct be commenced, since 
the claims of individual litigants, when taken 
spearately, often hardly justify the expense of. 
1itigation.” 

This reasoning appears to be just as applicable to Securities class 

te
le
 

gto anes pref loca arni-vAn Arann Ll A I Re he} CO: ane yet —- al ha PERF SE ST EE GATS. I LAP NOI ET b
e
l
a
 

i ack t = aba EA aa 
“ii LY OF Eh I SPA «Cn 

a
d
e
 

_ certain that 2a public is represented by calouted and experienced 

trial counsel, the remuneration wa be both felix and reward- 

ing. | 

Petitioning counsel were also assisted in the Jeniphen 

accounting th lems phontnson in this litigation by Irwin B. Schumer, 

a certified public accountant with the accounting firm of Tunick 

and Plachin, Mr. Schumer is on a member of the New York bar. 

We are also voneliod £0 approve the reasonableness of his fee 

in the amount of $16,000 for accounting services vondaron by him. 

The expenses of retaining an accountant, if" Cain, reasonable and 

necessary in the litigation, should be shared by the class and. 

awarded out of the settlement fund. Based on the affidavits .sub- 

/ 

mitted in support of the pétition, the Court finds that the services 

wl 



e
r
i
e
,
 

OF Che dCcountang Were 
that th, Sum of $16,000 

Fequiyeqg in this Litigation and fupes 
i; fair and POT only. for the acco 

Services. The Cou: also finds that Lhe "£14 of Haro1g E.R, 

PA, shoul be reimbuyg eg for its Necessary fair and YES, 

OO pack ur Costs eXpendey in rh, Litigarion in the amoun ¢ 

$7,950, 59 These Costg Shall be paig out of Che Settle ment fy, 

» and Georpa of Pechary, 
20ads 

Sett]emens com 

Clement 

SXpenseg 

defend. 

COS tg Incury eq Ses, ithe Cestg Of the Lr 
Che Cost 

Cltlemen fund, 

~13.. 

Ag id Poin lea HAY 
a vo 

, [||ca2a2813-c316-4101-b4a3-581338df7bc6||]