Judge Signs Off on Fees in $1.5B Syngenta Corn Settlement
Plaintiffs' attorney Mikal Watts plans to appeal U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum's order, which largely approved a special master's recommendation on how to dole out $503 million in legal fees.
January 03, 2019 at 06:11 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Kansas has largely signed off on a special master's recommendation on how to dole out $503 million in legal fees as part of a $1.5 billion settlement with Syngenta over genetically modified corn.
In a Dec. 31 order, U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum rejected arguments from Texas plaintiffs lawyer Mikal Watts, who has sought up to $150 million in fees. Watts was among more than a dozen lawyers who raised concerns at a hearing last month about the special master's report, which divvied up fees to about 400 law firms.
In an interview, Watts said he planned to appeal. A recent trend in ”hybrid” multidistrict litigation proceedings — those that include both individual cases with contingency fee contracts and class actions – raise issues that the appellate courts will have to address, he said.
“This may well be the last hybrid case that corporate America can ever settle,” he said. “People hired by private individual clients are not going to put their client into hybrid settlement deals where 88 percent of their fee is absconded by lawyers who the clients don't know.”
Lungstrum agreed with the special master that the bulk of the fee award should go to common benefit fees, with nearly half the award going to lead plaintiffs lawyers in the multidistrict litigation, in Kansas, who “easily contributed the most to the class settlement.” Smaller percentages of the fee award, he wrote, should go to lawyers in Minnesota state court and Illinois federal court who did work that benefited the class.
“The successful resolution of this litigation was most driven by the successes achieved in the Kansas MDL (including a favorable trial verdict and the specter of additional class trials to come) and the massive consolidated action in Minnesota; Illinois provided an additional front, but that front clearly ranked third in the pecking order,” he wrote.
The settlement, approved in an order last month, resolved lawsuits alleging that Syngenta sold genetically modified corn seed that China refused to import, causing about 600,000 farmers and other producers to lose billions of dollars.
In her Nov. 21 report, the special master, Ellen Reisman of Reisman Karron Greene in Washington, D.C., recommended that 50 percent of the fees should go to 95 law firms in the multidistrict litigation in Kansas. Another 24 percent should go to lawyers with Minnesota cases, 16 percent to those in Illinois, and 10 percent to attorneys with individual clients.
The special master also had recommended capping contingency fees at 10 percent for a fourth group: lawyers with individual clients. Lungstrum supported that move but, in order to impose such a cap, concluded that he would have to raise the percentage of fees for that group from 10 percent to 12 percent, resulting in a corresponding reduction in common benefit fees. To accommodate the increase, Lungstrum reduced the common benefit pools: Kansas to 49 percent, Minnesota to 23.5 percent and Illinois to 15.5 percent.
At a Dec. 17 hearing, lawyers with individual clients raised concerns that the report failed to acknowledge the work they did.
A key voice in that camp was Watts, of Watts Guerra in San Antonio, who, along with 330 other firms, represented 57,000 farmers with individual contingency fee contracts. Reisman, in her report, shot down his initial request for $150 million in fees. Watts objected to her report, but lead plaintiffs attorneys in Kansas estimated that Watts Guerra stood to earn $52 million, plus $12.8 million in expenses, under the report's allocation.
This week, Lungstrum rejected various arguments from Watts, who called his order “unprecedented.”
He said Lungstrum should not have relied on a 2018 fee sharing agreement that excluded him and other lawyers with individual clients. And he challenged the 10 percent cap on contingency fees. But his primary concern was the judge's authority to regulate attorney fees governed by contingency fee contracts.
“There is no way in future torts that any lawyer is going to subject himself and his clients to a hybrid deal if this is the law of the land,” he said.
Lungstrum, however, noted that attorneys with individual clients could submit requests by Jan. 18 for expenses or common benefit work, in addition to their contingency fees.
Lungstrum also approved $48.8 million in expenses and nearly $2.8 million in service awards to class representatives. U.S. District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois and Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Judge Laurie Miller signed off on Lungstrum's order.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250