Lawyers Who Got $1.4B Equifax Data Breach Settlement Want $77M in Fees
In a Tuesday motion, lawyers from 13 firms said their fee request represented less than 20.4% of the $380.5 million cash fund and only 5.6% of the settlement when including the other benefits to the class.
October 30, 2019 at 02:54 PM
5 minute read
Plaintiffs lawyers who obtained a $1.4 billion class action settlement with Equifax over its massive data breach have asked a federal judge to approve more than $77.5 million in attorney fees to them.
In a Tuesday motion, lawyers from 13 firms appointed to the multidistrict litigation said their fee request, originally disclosed in the settlement's terms, was reasonable given that it represented less than 20.4% of the $380.5 million cash fund and only 5.6% of the settlement when including the other benefits to the class.
"This unprecedented case presented many novel and difficult legal questions," the motion says. "Determining and proving the cause of the breach and developing cybersecurity measures to prevent a recurrence were particularly challenging."
The fee request is the highest of any data breach settlement, with fee awards approved in similar cases against Anthem and Yahoo totaling $31 million and $30 million, respectively. In July, in a case involving many of the same lawyers as in Equifax, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a $15.3 million fee award in Home Depot's data breach settlement with financial institutions.
But the Equifax case stands apart from other data breach settlements, lawyers wrote.
"The proposed settlement that class counsel negotiated to resolve the consumer claims in this case is historic, exceeding the value of all previous consumer data breach settlements combined," the motion says. "This is the largest data breach settlement in history. The $380.5 million fund alone is more than the total recovered in all consumer data breach settlements in the last ten years."
The fee request would primarily compensate all 13 firms, but another 46 law firms worked on the case. The request also includes more than $1.2 million in expenses and service awards of $2,500 each to 96 named plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint.
The settlement, filed on July 22, resolved claims by 147 million U.S. consumers whose personal and financial information was compromised from the 2017 cyberattack, plus civil complaints brought by the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 50 state attorneys general. Under the settlement, Equifax agreed to spend $1 billion on cybersecurity measures over the next five years. Equifax also agreed to pay another $125 million for out-of-pocket losses by consumers, and as much as $2 billion more in credit monitoring, if needed.
Chief Judge Thomas Thrash of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, preliminarily approved the settlement.
In Tuesday's motion, lawyers estimated that their total billing multiplied by their hourly rate—referred to as the lodestar—was nearly $21 million and would total more than $27.7 million when including future work on the settlement. As of Sept. 30, plaintiffs lawyers spent more than 34,000 hours on the case and expect to spend another 10,000 in the next seven years. Top billers were Kansas City, Missouri's Stueve Siegel Hanson, Chicago's DiCello Levitt Gutzler and Atlanta's Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles. Co-lead counsel were Norman Siegel of Stueve Siegel; Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt; and Ken Canfield of Doffermyre Shields.
At least three lawyers—Canfield and Everette Doffermyre, another partner at Doffermyre Shields, and former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes of The Barnes Law Group in Marietta, Georgia—charged hourly rates of $1,000 or more, according to exhibits attached to the motion. Barnes was co-liaison counsel.
In their motion, plaintiffs lawyers said the fees were reasonable under the governing law in the Eleventh Circuit, which does not require a lodestar cross-check when awarding class action fees.
"In fact, courts in this circuit have discouraged the use of a lodestar cross-check, cautioning that doing a cross-check simply reintroduces the same undesirable incentives the percentage method is meant to avoid," they wrote.
The fee request includes supporting declarations from Robert Klonoff, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, and Atlanta attorney Harold "Hal" Daniel, past president of the State Bar of Georgia, described in the motion as a "prominent Atlanta lawyer and fee expert."
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 All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readFulton Jury Returns Defense Verdict After Pedestrian Killed by MARTA Bus
8 minute read'The Best Strategy': $795K Resolution Reached in Federal COVID-Accommodation Dispute
8 minute readPopulation and Caseload Boom Birth New West Georgia Judicial Circuit
7 minute readTrending Stories
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