3rd Circ. Rejects Law Firm's Bid to Set Aside $15M of Client's Bankruptcy Payouts for Attorney Fees
A federal appeals court has denied a Wilmington law firm's request to stop the flow of settlement money from a body armor company's bankruptcy so that the firm could establish a $15 million reserve for attorney fees.
June 25, 2019 at 02:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A federal appeals court has denied a Wilmington law firm's request to stop the flow of settlement money from a body armor company's bankruptcy so that the firm could establish a $15 million reserve for attorney fees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's June 25 precedential ruling is the latest development in the legal debacle surrounding the downfall of David H. Brooks, the late CEO of Delaware-incorporated DHB Industries whose conviction on insider trading charges spawned a flurry of class action lawsuits and the ultimate demise of his company.
In its ruling Tuesday, the Third Circuit upheld the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware's denial of an emergency stay filed by Carter Ledyard & Milburn, a law firm representing DHB, now known as S.S. Body Armor I Inc., in consolidated class action and derivative lawsuits brought under section 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 in the Second Circuit,
In 2016, Brooks—whose company supplied the U.S. military and police departments with bullet-resistant vests—died while serving time in a Connecticut federal prison for defrauding investors. Afterward, a New York federal judge abated some of Brooks' convictions and restitution obligations, for which his estate was on the hook, according to Third Circuit Judge Joseph A. Greenaway's opinion.
However, after several rounds of settlement talks, DHB was still responsible for paying out $142 million as part of a second bankruptcy settlement. During this time, Carter Ledyard pursued $1.86 million in fees for a decade's worth of litigation in the SOX 304 matter, Greenaway said. The bankruptcy court, however, ruled that Carter Ledyard would only receive attorney fees if and when DHB actually received funds in the SOX 304 matter.
Carter Ledyard, fearing the possibility that it could get nothing if DHB failed to receive fund from the SOX 304 matter, next sought to set aside $25 million in settlement funds to pay attorney fees. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted Carter Ledyard's motion in part, but earmarked only $5 million, without specifying the amount owed to the firm, Greenaway said. The firm argued that the amount was insufficient.
Carter Ledyard later requested a stay of distribution of settlement funds while it appealed the ruling, but a district judge denied it. That led to the firm's appeal to the Third Circuit, which presented questions of whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case as well as whether the district court was right to deny the stay.
After concluding that the court did have jurisdiction in the case, Greenaway said although the exact amount owed to Carter Ledyard is yet to be determined, the Third Circuit's job was only to determine whether the $5 million set aside was enough.
“A $5 million attorneys' fees award for 1,502.2 hours of legal work totaling $549,472.61 of documented fees would yield an hourly rate of $3,328.45 and a lodestar multiplier of over nine. But we have previously noted that, in common fund cases where attorneys' fees are calculated using the lodestar method, 'multiples ranging from one to four' are the norm,” Greenaway said, adding that there was no reason to stray from that formula.
“To be sure, CLM showed tremendous skill and expended substantial time in preserving a highly valuable claim,” he continued. “But its attempts to argue that it is somehow due attorneys' fees more than $5 million are belied by its initial fee application in the bankruptcy court. There, CLM sought attorneys' fees totaling $1.86 million using a lodestar multiplier of 3.38, which it stated was 'entirely reasonable in light of … the value of the asset preserved and benefits conferred, the risks undertaken by counsel[,] and the public policies that were vindicated' by preserving the SOX 304 claim.”
Greenaway concluded, ”We see no reason why CLM's prior analysis should not hold now, especially given the current record.”
Gary D. Sesser of Carter Ledyard, who argued the case on behalf of his firm, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Alan J. Kornfeld of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones in Los Angeles, who argued the case for DHB.
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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 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