We were retained by groups of shareholders in six separate suits to appeal or object to the attorneys' fees applications of class counsel. In three of these actions, class counsel obtained settlement, but applied for what our clients believed were excessive fees relative to the actual hours worked, sometimes asking for 45% of the settlement fund. We appeared in these actions for two primary reasons: (1) to ensure that the class had an adequate opportunity to review the fee applications prior to submission to the court; and (2) to scrutinize and object to any unreasonable fee requests in those applications.

Denise Cassese V. Washington Mutual, Inc., Et Al., Civil Action No. 05-2724 (Ads)(Arl) (Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York) (2011) (successfully objected to plaintiff’s motions seeking to compel our individual objector client to appear for deposition and to travel cross country to attend fairness hearing).

In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-08-00832-JW (Federal District Court, District of Northern California) (2010) (successful objection that four days was not sufficient time to evaluate the fee application before objections were due, leading to court ruling that class counsel deprived class of due process).

Hill v. State Street Corp., 09-CV-12146 (Federal District Court, Massachusetts) (2009) (appeared to ask for early intervention as to attorneys' fees).

New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First Databank, Inc., No. 05-11148 PBS (Federal District Court, Massachusetts) (2009) (preserving procedural due process, ultimately leading to the class counsel partially waiving $1.2 million in attorneys' fees and costs).

In re Leapfrog Enterprise, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-03-05421-RMW (Federal District Court, Northern District of California) (2008) (preserving procedural due process).

UCFW Local 880 v. Newmont Mining Corp., No. 05-01046-MSK-BNB (Federal District Court, Colorado) (2008) (saving the class $4.5 million and preserving procedural due process).