%PDF-1.3 % 1 0 obj << /Creator /CreationDate (D:20001030143111) /Title /Producer (Acrobat PDFWriter 4.0 for Windows) /ModDate (D:20001030143353-05'00') >> endobj 2 0 obj [ /PDF /Text /ImageC ] endobj 3 0 obj << /Pages 48 0 R /Type /Catalog /DefaultGray 49 0 R /DefaultRGB 50 0 R >> endobj 4 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F0 10 0 R /F1 12 0 R /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /XObject << /im1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents [ 8 0 R 16 0 R ] >> endobj 5 0 obj << /Kids [ 51 0 R 4 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R 26 0 R 29 0 R 32 0 R ] /Count 7 /Type /Pages /Parent 48 0 R >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Name /im1 /Filter /DCTDecode /Width 144 /Height 35 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace /DeviceRGB /Length 7 0 R >> stream AdobedC   #  k!1AQ"aq 2B# Rb3$rC4%DSc&s5T'dt6EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjz ?>0li%[ǒ?鎴w-,2& fTh:۟Ջ\${q%ۜU4LaqK\O\(z|qP7sMm'^hoTؘcnTPV­]M;z= nqaI[#oy93o6˂N?~(mEZrfc72:ڻ\e}y?Y" B31ڛhqkoqvoŔK_sU |4sʍq]scнv|YhY% CiC_1-@FA5|ظGJ(jOR̄yj2 6=cg>ek-N%İFA5`lC-}=o܌e?q ch"B+냮\󣛜#[߻oc)[THYppiq;y<ǺxvV2&Fn`np uxvvp]Tn2c|~ZJ.sÆj^8O=򇷽넫*w/!+T s3Rn[/o W]b4۪{ȼ s[;Mq/v EDSZ e%O5R47qգpp>';bv^%@J$=jhnݸ8}k7q .bjP1.or^8qRͯi*"[6v)ׯ7T%^dQ~7Uv*]UP^o%і2RH={MNsgw_ uK]pm8yO ;ZepMNsow_ uC[plI1?x*PrhDS/6ώE^Zޣ _X%D̆N+" )Iݟ<7?jQF2x8M;#jNcG#||˖A:ᡆY!Usn>ؠ7HlAݯ?4u\40^9?d*Ӳ ("ru_N}_ch;Mf8щd*`Lq[󗴧v ~mpnJ+d@^Pֹ|- )5]\+;-wۅ撊Y1J/š3ǝ}ַGssEY{1D osDPֹ|-^oklqG6MzWcԑFӥ)4Ȏ*Fہ'9sE{;p#*uj:[q.󿑯~tEs@/aq?YX^SJ?c_o{*h=џ~+Jv2n}MIٶ8ZTqSbY;@Mx1r;6?cH .Y}v}1ٺ6'w^Qڛms%׀dAҾ^ +I~EPGjn-EKs^aSJy{&0%C=8AΫ)n|asJ'{y~[AT 熣y[>MbẙdsM1uS/|mkJ 놣铖.}6]Gu3IKôb^֕qiS bY*LyVX.T+Zim*$kݡwZ^J.J҃ }u[_m~3|mՑ:3JL. N"eoݯxnudN=7&E\vpWs9.7<6%[[*+bs;$n0j ^2%>6[es"=쬠`te曣c[0'%xЗ;omіnoݘ+U>>8}q ]DyebPD :+\NܿRTQWh6HbBIq&M:rÃU|I ]*n1.q"D2iГHfvhxõPIOSt/15nh܀+uO2'(fE3Œ;GK vY0P?2^P2~g;@7eHrY|BAE#h̄$m'3xS.C% C)l1>`\ J3,y+IxʒZL 7*J3<!tč h 1#@kCZ LHրjaRj1Y6NSS P!:ɴnuMmS[Bg&C3:Y#Cu ;F2FHC8adkukTә1>sG832c}5Fq5"cnInhP1N זx];gtl2#^Z72jwԲF2Bѹb%3:\ (q" q~ޞwo$4Ow/X>m8׻M;~\q?i/v>#U?i|c.vlknwߛ|:࢙>2n ޮ4L6|=O|οx0wsAw zw ߙ=NNO~oqOݎgY]wj˗ݟ@3]{w;qn7w;qn7w;qn7w; endstream endobj 7 0 obj 5720 endobj 8 0 obj << /Length 9 0 R >> stream q 108.12 0 0 -26.16 90.36 774 cm /im1 Do endstream endobj 9 0 obj 43 endobj 10 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F0 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman,Bold /FirstChar 31 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 778 250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 278 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778 611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500 333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500 556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 778 500 778 333 500 500 1000 500 500 333 1000 556 333 1000 778 778 778 778 333 333 500 500 350 500 1000 333 1000 389 333 722 778 778 722 250 333 500 500 500 500 220 500 333 747 300 500 570 333 747 500 400 549 300 300 333 576 540 250 333 300 330 500 750 750 750 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 1000 722 667 667 667 667 389 389 389 389 722 722 778 778 778 778 778 570 778 722 722 722 722 722 611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 278 500 556 500 500 500 500 500 549 500 556 556 556 556 500 556 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 11 0 R >> endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman,Bold /Flags 16418 /FontBBox [ -250 -220 1212 920 ] /MissingWidth 780 /StemV 137 /StemH 137 /ItalicAngle 0 /CapHeight 920 /XHeight 644 /Ascent 920 /Descent -220 /Leading 180 /MaxWidth 1010 /AvgWidth 430 >> endobj 12 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F1 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic /FirstChar 31 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 778 250 389 555 500 500 833 778 278 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 832 667 667 667 722 667 667 722 778 389 500 667 611 889 722 722 611 722 667 556 611 722 667 889 667 611 611 333 278 333 570 500 333 500 500 444 500 444 333 500 556 278 278 500 278 778 556 500 500 500 389 389 278 556 444 667 500 444 389 348 220 348 570 778 500 778 333 500 500 1000 500 500 333 1000 556 333 944 778 778 778 778 333 333 500 500 350 500 1000 333 1000 389 333 722 778 778 611 250 389 500 500 500 500 220 500 333 747 266 500 606 333 747 500 400 549 300 300 333 576 500 250 333 300 300 500 750 750 750 500 667 667 667 667 667 667 944 667 667 667 667 667 389 389 389 389 722 722 722 722 722 722 722 570 722 722 722 722 722 611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 278 500 556 500 500 500 500 500 549 500 556 556 556 556 444 500 444 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 13 0 R >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic /Flags 16482 /FontBBox [ -250 -220 1212 900 ] /MissingWidth 780 /StemV 131 /StemH 131 /ItalicAngle -11 /CapHeight 900 /XHeight 630 /Ascent 900 /Descent -220 /Leading 160 /MaxWidth 1010 /AvgWidth 410 >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F2 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman /FirstChar 31 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 778 250 333 408 500 500 833 778 180 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 778 500 778 333 500 444 1000 500 500 333 1000 556 333 889 778 778 778 778 333 333 444 444 350 500 1000 333 980 389 333 722 778 778 722 250 333 500 500 500 500 200 500 333 760 276 500 564 333 760 500 400 549 300 300 333 576 453 250 333 300 310 500 750 750 750 444 722 722 722 722 722 722 889 667 611 611 611 611 333 333 333 333 722 722 722 722 722 722 722 564 722 722 722 722 722 722 556 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 667 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 549 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 15 0 R >> endobj 15 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -250 -242 1200 890 ] /MissingWidth 780 /StemV 72 /StemH 72 /ItalicAngle 0 /CapHeight 890 /XHeight 623 /Ascent 890 /Descent -242 /Leading 176 /MaxWidth 1000 /AvgWidth 396 >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Length 17 0 R >> stream Q BT 319.92 89.88 TD 0 0 0 rg /F0 12 Tf 0 Tc -0 Tw (This article is reprinted with permission) Tj 38.76 -14.16 TD -0.0069 Tc 0.0069 Tw (from the May 24, 2000 edition of) Tj -88.68 -14.16 TD /F1 12 Tf 0.0141 Tc -0.0141 Tw (New York Law Journal) Tj 115.92 0 TD /F0 12 Tf -0.0152 Tc 0.0152 Tw (. \2512000 NLP IP Company.) Tj -194.4 -13.92 TD /F1 12 Tf 0.0106 Tc -0.0106 Tw (\(Read more American Lawyer Media news on the Web on law.com\)) Tj -97.92 -12.84 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc 0 Tw (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 0 690.96 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj -124.44 -28.08 TD /F0 12 Tf -0.0109 Tc 0.0109 Tw (Second Circuit Review: Attorney\222s Fee Awards in Common Fund Cases) Tj 5.28 -28.08 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.378 Tc 0 Tw (In) Tj 9.48 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 2.76 0 TD -0.1411 Tc 0.0211 Tw (the five years since Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Ac) Tj 380.4 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1251 Tc 0.0051 Tw (of 1995,) Tj 42.36 0 TD -0.1283 Tc 0.0083 Tw ( practitioners) Tj 61.2 0 TD -0.009 Tc 0.009 Tw ( and commentators alike have debated whether plaintiffs in common) Tj -64.56 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (1) Tj -39 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.111 Tc (fund) Tj 22.44 0 TD 0.096 Tc 1.344 Tw ( cases) Tj 30.24 0 TD -0.0155 Tc 1.3355 Tw ( serve as true client-principals, or as \223figureheads\224 facilitating the \223quest fo) Tj 375.36 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (r) Tj -428.04 -14.16 TD -0.126 Tc (attorn) Tj 27.24 0 TD -0.06 Tc 0.06 Tw (ey\222s fees.\224) Tj 53.64 0 TD -0.0087 Tc 0.0087 Tw ( In this month\222s column, we discuss ) Tj 178.08 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0101 Tc 0.0101 Tw (Integrated Resources) Tj -252.6 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (2) Tj -77.28 -18.96 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.021 Tc (Inc.) Tj 18.24 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (,) Tj 6.6 0 TD -0.0125 Tc 0.0125 Tw ( which marks the Second Circuit\222s entry into this debate.) Tj -3.6 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (3) Tj 14.76 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.138 Tc (In) Tj 9.96 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.112 Tc (Goldbe) Tj 36 0 TD -0.006 Tc (rger) Tj 20.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0125 Tc 0.1325 Tw (, an opinion written by Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin, and joined b) Tj 320.52 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -426.36 -14.16 TD 0.116 Tc (Judges) Tj 33.36 0 TD 0.1248 Tc 2.0352 Tw ( Chest) Tj 33.12 0 TD -0.0041 Tc 2.0441 Tw (er J. Straub and Robert D. Sack, the Second Circuit held that either th) Tj 360.24 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.112 Tc (\223lo) Tj 15 0 TD -0.0206 Tc (destar\224) Tj 33.84 0 TD -0.0364 Tc 1.5964 Tw ( or \223percentage of recovery\224 methods may appropriately be used to calculat) Tj 377.88 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.12 Tc (atto) Tj 18.48 0 TD -0.078 Tc (rney\222s) Tj 29.52 0 TD -0.0081 Tc 0.1281 Tw ( fees in common fund litigation. Under the \223lodestar\224 method, the district cour) Tj 380.64 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD 0.108 Tc (determine) Tj 48.96 0 TD 0.012 Tc (s) Tj 4.68 0 TD -0.0204 Tc 2.3004 Tw ( the number of hours actually and reasonably billed to the class, and the) Tj 372.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.108 Tc (mu) Tj 15.12 0 TD -0.0183 Tc 0.0183 Tw (ltiplies that figure by an appropriate hourly rate. Once the initial computation has been) Tj -15.12 -14.16 TD -0.1265 Tc 0.0065 Tw (made, the district court may) Tj 130.44 0 TD -0.0189 Tc 0.0189 Tw (, in its discretion, increase the lodestar by applying a multiplier) Tj -130.44 -14.16 TD -0.1309 Tc 0.0109 Tw (based on \223less objective factors\224 such as the risk of the litigation and the per) Tj 356.28 0 TD -0.0194 Tc 0.0194 Tw (formance of the) Tj -356.28 -14.16 TD -0.0432 Tc 0 Tw (attorneys.) Tj 50.16 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.24 0 TD -0.0244 Tc 0.1444 Tw ( Under the \223percentage of recovery\224 method, the court sets some percentage o) Tj 374.64 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (f) Tj -381.48 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (4) Tj -46.56 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.008 Tc (the) Tj 14.64 0 TD -0.0323 Tc 0.139 Tw ( recovery as a fee \(often 25 percent\), based ) Tj 209.16 0 TD -0.0114 Tc 0.0114 Tw (upon the same \223less objective\224 factors used) Tj -223.8 -14.16 TD -0.0036 Tc 0.0036 Tw (to determine the lodestar multiplier.) Tj 172.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (5) Tj -136.2 -33.12 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.1107 Tc (Goldberge) Tj 52.32 0 TD 0.012 Tc (r) Tj 4.68 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0103 Tc 0.7303 Tw ( vests district courts in the Second Circuit with sweeping authority ) Tj 0.744 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 333 0 TD 0 Tc (o) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.126 Tc (exercise) Tj 40.2 0 TD 0.132 Tc 0.948 Tw ( di) Tj 13.68 0 TD -0.0213 Tc 0.9813 Tw (scretion in awarding attorneys\222 fees from a common fund.) Tj 289.2 0 TD -0.0403 Tc 1 Tw ( Accordingly, th) Tj 83.64 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -87.24 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (6) Tj -339.48 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.112 Tc (Second) Tj 36 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.96 0 TD -0.0009 Tc 0.8409 Tw (Circuit ruled in) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 78.84 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0019 Tc 0.8419 Tw ( that the district court did not abuse its discretion ) Tj 0.84 Tc 0 Tw (b) Tj 251.64 0 TD 0 Tc (y) Tj -426.36 -14.16 TD 0.084 Tc (aw) Tj 14.16 0 TD -0.01 Tc (arding) Tj 30.48 0 TD -0.0169 Tc 0.9769 Tw ( only 4 percent of a $54 million settlement recovery \($2.1 million\) based upo) Tj 381.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.1107 Tc (counsel\222s) Tj 46.32 0 TD 0.048 Tc 1.152 Tw ( \223l) Tj 13.08 0 TD -0.0206 Tc 1.1006 Tw (odestar\224 of hours actually and reasonably billed. The district court was no) Tj 369.24 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD 0.108 Tc (requi) Tj 25.2 0 TD -0.028 Tc (red) Tj 15.24 0 TD -0.0175 Tc 1.9375 Tw ( to award 25 percent of the recovery \($13.5 million\), or to apply a multiplie) Tj 387.6 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (r) Tj -428.04 -14.16 TD -0.0105 Tc 0.0105 Tw (enhancement to counsels\222 lodestar.) Tj 0 -28.56 TD /F0 12 Tf 0.0126 Tc -0.0126 Tw (Background of the Case) Tj 36 -28.08 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1272 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 54.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.132 Tc 0.012 Tw ( arose from the securiti) Tj 107.52 0 TD -0.0083 Tc 0.0083 Tw (es litigation involving Michael Milken of Drexel) Tj -198.24 -14.16 TD 0.0823 Tc 0 Tw (Burnham) Tj 45.36 0 TD -0.0165 Tc 0.6165 Tw ( Lambert Group Inc. in the 1980s. Criminal and civil enforcement proceeding) Tj 381.96 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD 0.0994 Tc (allegin) Tj 33.36 0 TD 0 Tc (g) Tj 5.88 0 TD -0.0153 Tc 0.1353 Tw ( securities fraud against Milken and Drexel had resulted in guilty pleas, fines, an) Tj 386.76 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.116 Tc (restitution.) Tj 53.64 0 TD -0.1497 Tc -0.0703 Tw ( The primary defendant in ) Tj 126.72 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1272 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 54.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj 2.76 0 TD -0.1503 Tc 0.0303 Tw (was Integrated Resources Inc., a financia) Tj 190.8 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (l) Tj -378.36 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (7) Tj -50.28 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1035 Tc (services) Tj 39.48 0 TD 0.112 Tc 2.048 Tw ( com) Tj 26.16 0 TD -0.0108 Tc 2.0508 Tw (pany that had defaulted on over $1 billion in short-term debt and whic) Tj 360.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (h) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.096 Tc (allegedl) Tj 38.76 0 TD 0 Tc (y) Tj 5.64 0 TD -0.0154 Tc 0.4954 Tw ( was aided and abetted by Milken and Drexel in a scheme to defraud investors.) Tj 384 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (8) Tj -428.4 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1436 Tc 0.0236 Tw (When the prices of Integrated\222s pu) Tj 161.52 0 TD -0.016 Tc 0.016 Tw (blicly traded securities plummeted, a group of plaintiffs\222) Tj -161.52 -14.16 TD 0.104 Tc 0 Tw (law) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.114 Tc 0.126 Tw ( fi) Tj 10.8 0 TD -0.0095 Tc 0.1295 Tw (rms immediately filed lawsuits on behalf of the putative class, alleging violations o) Tj 399.6 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (f) Tj -428.04 -14.16 TD 0 Tc (\247) Tj 6.12 0 TD 0.108 Tc 0.372 Tw ( 10\() Tj 19.8 0 TD -0.0122 Tc 0.3722 Tw (b\) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.) Tj 403.08 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj -429 -14.16 TD 0.138 Tc (Mi) Tj 14.28 0 TD -0.012 Tc (lberg) Tj 24.48 0 TD -0.0474 Tc 1.4874 Tw ( Weiss Bershad Hines & Lerach LLP and Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri LLP wer) Tj 387.96 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.0168 Tc 0.0168 Tw (designated co-lead counsel.) Tj ET endstream endobj 17 0 obj 9476 endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /Name /F3 /BaseFont /TimesNewRoman,Italic /FirstChar 31 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 778 250 333 420 500 500 833 778 214 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500 920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722 611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500 333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500 500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 778 500 778 333 500 556 889 500 500 333 1000 500 333 944 778 778 778 778 333 333 556 556 350 500 889 333 980 389 333 667 778 778 556 250 389 500 500 500 500 275 500 333 760 276 500 675 333 760 500 400 549 300 300 333 576 523 250 333 300 310 500 750 750 750 500 611 611 611 611 611 611 889 667 611 611 611 611 333 333 333 333 722 667 722 722 722 722 722 675 722 722 722 722 722 556 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 667 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 549 500 500 500 500 500 444 500 444 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /FontDescriptor 19 0 R >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /TimesNewRoman,Italic /Flags 98 /FontBBox [ -250 -240 1188 900 ] /MissingWidth 780 /StemV 73 /StemH 73 /ItalicAngle -11 /CapHeight 900 /XHeight 630 /Ascent 900 /Descent -240 /Leading 180 /MaxWidth 990 /AvgWidth 400 >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F0 10 0 R /F2 14 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 21 0 R >> endobj 21 0 obj << /Length 22 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (2) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 36 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.027 Tc (Four) Tj 22.56 0 TD -0.026 Tc 4.706 Tw ( separate settlements eventually were reached with Integrated and th) Tj 368.16 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.154 Tc 0.034 Tw (codefendants, generating a total recovery for the Integrated c) Tj 282.96 0 TD -0.0107 Tc 0.0107 Tw (lass of over $54 million. It fell) Tj -282.96 -14.16 TD 0.132 Tc 0 Tw (to) Tj 9.6 0 TD -0.017 Tc 0.257 Tw ( District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram to award attorney\222s fees, and Judge Kram appointe) Tj 416.4 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.0291 Tc (Michael) Tj 39.24 0 TD -0.014 Tc 0.1207 Tw ( D. Hess as a special master to review ) Tj 185.28 0 TD -0.0113 Tc 0.0113 Tw (the fee application.) Tj 95.04 0 TD -0.0107 Tc 0.0107 Tw ( Special Master Hess\222s) Tj -3.6 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (9) Tj -315.96 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1131 Tc (initial) Tj 28.92 0 TD 0.174 Tc 0.546 Tw ( Re) Tj 17.28 0 TD -0.0116 Tc 0.6116 Tw (port and Recommendation recommended that counsel receive 25 percent of th) Tj 380.52 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.138 Tc (settle) Tj 26.04 0 TD -0 Tc (ment) Tj 24 0 TD -0.0138 Tc 1.6938 Tw ( recovery, or $13.5 million, but Judge Kram directed Mr. Hess to revise hi) Tj 377.28 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD 0.078 Tc (re) Tj 9.48 0 TD -0.004 Tc (commendation) Tj 71.28 0 TD -0.024 Tc 1.224 Tw ( and to base any fee award on counsels\222 lodestar.) Tj 251.64 0 TD -0.0129 Tc 1.2129 Tw ( Mr. Hess\222s secon) Tj 93.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -100.8 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (10) Tj -325.2 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1315 Tc 0.0115 Tw (Report recommended a lodes) Tj 136.92 0 TD -0.01 Tc 0.01 Tw (tar of just over $1.4 million, after eliminating various charges) Tj -136.92 -14.16 TD -0.1255 Tc 0.0055 Tw (he found to be excessive, but permitted co) Tj 197.4 0 TD -0.0162 Tc 0.0162 Tw (unsel to bill for their then-current hourly rates \227) Tj -197.4 -14.16 TD 0.096 Tc 0 Tw (even) Tj 23.04 0 TD 0.104 Tc 0.736 Tw ( though) Tj 0 Tc 0.12 Tw ( ) Tj 41.64 0 TD -0.0227 Tc 0.7427 Tw (the actual billing period spanned three and one-half years preceding the fe) Tj 362.04 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.0053 Tc (petition.) Tj 39.72 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (11) Tj -3.72 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1512 Tc (Judge) Tj 27.36 0 TD -0.1384 Tc -0.5549 Tw ( Kram adopted Mr. Hess\222s recommendation on the theory ) Tj 267.24 0 TD -0.1296 Tc -0.4704 Tw (that then-current rate) Tj 96.72 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD 0.081 Tc (were) Tj 23.64 0 TD 0.148 Tc 1.652 Tw ( justif) Tj 30.24 0 TD -0.0244 Tc 1.7044 Tw (ied in order to compensate counsel for the delay in payment. Judge Kram) Tj 375.12 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (,) Tj -429 -14.16 TD 0.102 Tc (howe) Tj 26.4 0 TD -0.021 Tc (ver,) Tj 18.24 0 TD -0.012 Tc 1.212 Tw ( reduced the lodestar to approximately $1.3 million, citing \223\221over 80 instance) Tj 382.68 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD 0.0888 Tc (where) Tj 29.76 0 TD -0.0141 Tc 0.4941 Tw ( the time records of Milberg Weiss, indicating meetings and telephone conference) Tj 397.56 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD -0.129 Tc 0.009 Tw (with coco) Tj 45.84 0 TD -0.0092 Tc 0.0092 Tw (unsel, do not correspond with the time records of other counsel.\222\224) Tj 321.96 0 TD -0.0267 Tc 0.0267 Tw ( Judge Kram) Tj -7.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (12) Tj -360.6 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.01 Tc 0.01 Tw (also declined to award a multiplier enhancement.) Tj 36 -28.32 TD -0.0027 Tc 0 Tw (Following) Tj 49.2 0 TD -0.0107 Tc 0.1157 Tw ( plaintiffs\222 counsels\222 second fee application, which requested ) Tj 296.64 0 TD -0.0173 Tc 0.0173 Tw (25 percent) Tj -381.84 -14.16 TD 0.102 Tc 0 Tw (of) Tj 10.2 0 TD 0.1234 Tc 0.3566 Tw ( a $32 mil) Tj 50.64 0 TD -0.0051 Tc 0.3651 Tw (lion collateral settlement, Judge Kram appointed David H. Pikus as a specia) Tj 367.8 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (l) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD 0.1097 Tc (master.) Tj 35.76 0 TD 0.108 Tc 0.132 Tw ( Mr) Tj 21.36 0 TD -0.0098 Tc 0.1298 Tw (. Pikus issued a Report and Recommendation recommending a lodestar awar) Tj 368.88 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.102 Tc (of) Tj 10.2 0 TD 0.12 Tc 0.6 Tw ( $865,) Tj 31.32 0 TD -0.0098 Tc 0.6098 Tw (326, which likewise excluded perceived excessive charges and did not include) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 385.2 0 TD -0.048 Tc (a) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.1145 Tc (multiplier.) Tj 49.08 0 TD 0 Tc -0.6 Tw ( ) Tj 4.8 0 TD -0.1311 Tc -0.3489 Tw (Judge Kram adopted Mr. Pikus\222 recommendation, holding that \223\221an enhancemen) Tj 374.76 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1351 Tc -0.0249 Tw (multiplier for the results achieved and risks borne by ) Tj 249 0 TD -0.0096 Tc 0.0096 Tw (Plaintiffs\222 Counsel would likely result) Tj -249 -14.16 TD 0.132 Tc 0 Tw (in) Tj 9.6 0 TD 0.1149 Tc 0.9651 Tw ( their ov) Tj 42.96 0 TD -0.0134 Tc 0 Tw (ercompensation.\222\224) Tj 95.28 0 TD -0.009 Tc 0.969 Tw ( For the two fee applications combined, the district cour) Tj 280.8 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -288 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (13) Tj -140.64 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.012 Tc 0.012 Tw (awarded counsel approximately $2.1 million.) Tj 0 -28.56 TD /F0 12 Tf -0.0066 Tc 0.0066 Tw (Second Circuit Reviews Precedent) Tj 36 -28.08 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.114 Tc 0 Tw (Th) Tj 13.56 0 TD -0.048 Tc (e) Tj 5.28 0 TD -0.017 Tc 1.817 Tw ( Second Circuit began its review of Judge Kram\222s ruling by discussing th) Tj 371.88 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.1005 Tc (American) Tj 48.12 0 TD 0.153 Tc 1.047 Tw ( Rule) Tj 27.36 0 TD -0.0209 Tc 1.1009 Tw (, which requires litigants to pay their own attorney\222s fees and expenses.) Tj 353.52 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj -429 -14.16 TD -0.1367 Tc 0.0167 Tw (Under an exception to that rule, attorneys ) Tj 196.2 0 TD -0.0133 Tc 0.0133 Tw (who create a common fund from which members) Tj -196.2 -14.16 TD -0.138 Tc 0 Tw (of) Tj 9.72 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 2.76 0 TD -0.1535 Tc 0.0335 Tw (a class are compensated for a common injury may seek a recovery-based \223reasonable fee) Tj 414.24 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (\224) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.108 Tc (from) Tj 23.76 0 TD 2.772 Tw ( the cou) Tj 44.4 0 TD -0.004 Tc 0 Tw (rt.) Tj 17.52 0 TD -0.0166 Tc 2.7766 Tw ( This \223reasonable fee\224 is calculated using either the \2231odestar\224 ) Tj 2.76 Tc 0 Tw (o) Tj 342.36 0 TD -0.036 Tc (r) Tj -349.56 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (14) Tj -78.48 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0372 Tc 0.0372 Tw (\223percentage of recovery\224 method.) Tj 36 -28.32 TD -0.132 Tc 0.012 Tw (The Second Circuit reaffirmed that a) Tj 171.6 0 TD -0.0126 Tc 0.0126 Tw ( district court\222s \223reasonable fee\224 determination) Tj -207.6 -14.16 TD 0.132 Tc 0 Tw (will) Tj 19.2 0 TD -0.0159 Tc 0.4959 Tw ( not be disturbed absent a mistake of law, clearly erroneous factual findings, or som) Tj 407.52 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.1299 Tc 0.0099 Tw (other abuse of discretion.) Tj 124.8 0 TD -0.1284 Tc 0.0084 Tw ( But, as the C) Tj 66.12 0 TD -0.0123 Tc 0.0123 Tw (ourt acknowledged, its approach to the calculation) Tj -72.96 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (15) Tj -117.96 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1423 Tc 0.0223 Tw (of reaso) Tj 37.2 0 TD -0.0118 Tc 0.0118 Tw (nable fees had \223evolved in a somewhat circuitous fashion.\224) Tj 290.88 0 TD -0.0053 Tc 0.0053 Tw ( For most of the 20th) Tj -7.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (16) Tj -320.88 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.0165 Tc (century,) Tj 39.48 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.2 0 TD -0.0289 Tc 1.1089 Tw (the percentage of recovery approach prevailed, with the standard attorney\222s fe) Tj 383.04 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.1275 Tc (hovering) Tj 41.52 0 TD -0.134 Tc -0.046 Tw ( around ) Tj 38.04 0 TD -0.1487 Tc 0.0287 Tw (25 percent of recovery. By the 1970s, however, some courts suggested tha) Tj 349.08 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1397 Tc 0.0197 Tw (the percentage approach resulted in windfalls for enterprising lawyers at the expense of ) Tj 410.04 0 TD 0.0168 Tc 0 Tw (their) Tj ET endstream endobj 22 0 obj 9323 endobj 23 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F0 10 0 R /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 24 0 R >> endobj 24 0 obj << /Length 25 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (3) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 0 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1283 Tc (client-class.) Tj 62.16 0 TD -0.1166 Tc -0.0034 Tw ( Thus, in ) Tj 47.04 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1145 Tc -0.0055 Tw (City of Detroit) Tj 68.28 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw ( v. ) Tj 14.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1154 Tc -0.0046 Tw (Grinnell Corp.) Tj 69.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (,) Tj 9.72 0 TD -0.1236 Tc 0.0036 Tw ( the Second C) Tj 65.4 0 TD -0.0019 Tc 0.0019 Tw (ircuit shifted course) Tj -281.52 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (17) Tj 6.84 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc -0.12 Tw ( ) Tj 32.16 0 TD 0 Tw ( ) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj 22.44 0 TD /F3 12 Tf ( ) Tj 12 0 TD ( ) Tj 36.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf ( ) Tj 11.64 0 TD ( ) Tj 42.6 0 TD /F3 12 Tf ( ) Tj 32.88 0 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc (18) Tj -264.6 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.104 Tc (and) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.0768 Tc 1.2432 Tw ( began ) Tj 1.344 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 41.16 0 TD -0.0085 Tc 1.2085 Tw (o mandate use of the lodestar method.) Tj 196.44 0 TD -0.0083 Tc 1.2083 Tw ( Expressing similar concerns abou) Tj 173.4 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -180.6 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (19) Tj -248.04 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0068 Tc 0.0068 Tw (overcompensation, other circuits soon followed the Second Circuit\222s lead.) Tj 354.84 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (20) Tj -318.84 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1 Tc (The) Tj 18.96 0 TD -0.0139 Tc 0.1339 Tw ( judiciary\222s focus on the lodestar approach led to the perception that plaintiffs) Tj 373.08 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (\222) Tj -428.04 -14.16 TD 0.104 Tc (law) Tj 17.64 0 TD -0.108 Tc (yers) Tj 19.56 0 TD -0.0091 Tc 0.1291 Tw ( were motivated to run up their billable hours or avoid settling cases at the earlies) Tj 391.44 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1405 Tc 0.0205 Tw (appropriate stage.) Tj 89.64 0 TD -0.1344 Tc 0.0144 Tw ( Moreover, judicial resource) Tj 135.12 0 TD -0.038 Tc 0.038 Tw (s frequently were wasted on a \223gimlet-eyed) Tj -141.96 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (21) Tj -82.8 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.092 Tc (rev) Tj 15.6 0 TD -0.016 Tc (iew) Tj 17.28 0 TD -0.0098 Tc 0.4898 Tw ( of line-item fee audits.\224) Tj 125.88 0 TD -0 Tc 0.4271 Tw ( Thus, in 1984, the Supreme Court, in ) Tj 191.64 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.003 Tc 0 Tw (Blum) Tj 25.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.24 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0017 Tc 0 Tw (Stenson) Tj 37.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (,) Tj -277.44 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (22) Tj -151.56 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.015 Tc (endorsed) Tj 43.2 0 TD -0.0225 Tc 1.5825 Tw ( the \223percentage of recovery\224 method in a footnote, observing that \223under th) Tj 383.52 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.1346 Tc 0.0146 Tw (\221common fund doctrine\222, a reasonable fee is based ) Tj 238.32 0 TD -0.0188 Tc 0.0188 Tw (on a percentage of the fund bestowed on) Tj -238.32 -14.16 TD -0.012 Tc 0.012 Tw (the class.\224) Tj 49.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (23) Tj -13.2 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.114 Tc (Th) Tj 13.56 0 TD 0.018 Tc (is) Tj 8.04 0 TD -0.0027 Tc 0.9627 Tw ( footnote prompted the Third, Eleventh and District of Columbia Circuits ) Tj 0.984 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 368.4 0 TD 0 Tc (o) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.1234 Tc (mandate) Tj 41.4 0 TD -0.014 Tc 0.134 Tw ( exclusive use of the percentage approach in common fund cases.) Tj 321.24 0 TD 0 Tc 0.12 Tw ( Seizing upo) Tj 63.36 0 TD 0 Tw (n) Tj -70.56 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (24) Tj -355.44 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.012 Tc (these) Tj 24.6 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.36 0 TD -0.0058 Tc 0.2158 Tw (decisions and Ninth Circuit precedent, plaintiffs\222 counsel in ) Tj 291.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0307 Tc 0.2707 Tw ( argued tha) Tj 53.52 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.128 Tc (the) Tj 14.28 0 TD -0.1237 Tc -0.3113 Tw ( Second Circuit should \223junk\224 the lodestar method ) Tj 236.28 0 TD -0.1382 Tc -0.2218 Tw (altogether, and mandate the percentag) Tj 176.16 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.1467 Tc 0.0267 Tw (of recovery method in comm) Tj 135.6 0 TD -0.0106 Tc 0.0106 Tw (on fund lawsuits. Conceding that a circuit split had generated) Tj -135.6 -14.16 TD -0.1221 Tc 0.0021 Tw (some confusion, the Second Circuit sided with six circuit courts that accorded distric) Tj 396.36 0 TD -0.0034 Tc 0.0034 Tw (t courts) Tj -396.36 -14.16 TD 0.099 Tc 0 Tw (broa) Tj 21.72 0 TD 0 Tc (d) Tj 6 0 TD -0.0279 Tc 3.0279 Tw ( discretion to employ either a lodestar or percentage of recovery framework.) Tj 397.08 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (25) Tj -424.8 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.024 Tc (A) Tj 8.64 0 TD -0.048 Tc (c) Tj 5.16 0 TD -0.0197 Tc 0.0197 Tw (cording to the Second Circuit, this approach was supported not merely by the weight of) Tj -13.8 -14.16 TD 0.0994 Tc 0 Tw (current) Tj 34.68 0 TD -0.0287 Tc 4.2287 Tw ( authority, but also by various policy concerns of fairness, objectivity an) Tj 391.32 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.1251 Tc (adminis) Tj 38.88 0 TD -0.0684 Tc (trability.) Tj 40.68 0 TD -0.0086 Tc 3.2486 Tw ( The Second Circuit observed that no single method can claim ) Tj 3.264 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 346.44 0 TD 0 Tc (o) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.1114 Tc (compens) Tj 43.44 0 TD 0.016 Tc (ate) Tj 13.92 0 TD -0.0156 Tc 2.4156 Tw ( plaintiffs\222 counsel equitably in all cases, without being over- \(or under-) Tj 370.68 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (\)) Tj -428.04 -14.16 TD 0.024 Tc (i) Tj 3.36 0 TD 0 Tc (n) Tj 5.88 0 TD -0.007 Tc 0.007 Tw (clusive in application. Thus, the Court urged that the alternative methods not be viewed) Tj -9.24 -14.16 TD 0.102 Tc 0 Tw (as) Tj 10.2 0 TD 0.081 Tc 0.639 Tw ( mutually) Tj 0 Tc -0.24 Tw ( ) Tj 50.76 0 TD -0.0173 Tc 0.6173 Tw (exclusive. For even where the percentage method ultimately is selected, th) Tj 365.76 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.132 Tc (lo) Tj 9.6 0 TD -0.016 Tc (destar) Tj 28.56 0 TD -0.016 Tc 0.616 Tw ( remains \223useful as a baseline\224 and a \223\221cross check\222 on the reasonableness of th) Tj 388.56 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.0269 Tc 0.0269 Tw (requested percentage.\224 ) Tj 111.72 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (26) Tj -111.72 -33.36 TD /F0 12 Tf -0.0042 Tc 0.0042 Tw (Benchmarking Lodestar) Tj 124.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj -88.92 -28.32 TD -0.258 Tc 0.138 Tw (In ) Tj 12.36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1272 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 54.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1316 Tc 0.0116 Tw (, plaintiffs\222 counsel argued that, once the district court had fastened ) Tj 316.92 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (on) Tj -420 -14.16 TD 0.112 Tc (the) Tj 15 0 TD 0.984 Tc -0.024 Tw ( l) Tj 7.44 0 TD -0 Tc 0.84 Tw (odestar method, it should have applied a multiplier of six. \223To put it more bluntly) Tj 406.56 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (,) Tj -429 -14.16 TD 0.1128 Tc (couns) Tj 28.56 0 TD -0.072 Tc (el) Tj 8.64 0 TD -0.015 Tc 1.695 Tw ( continue[d] to assert that they were entitled to a 25 percent fee.\224) Tj 337.44 0 TD 0.0036 Tc 1.6764 Tw ( Plaintiffs) Tj 53.4 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (\222) Tj -60.6 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (27) Tj -367.44 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1393 Tc 0.0193 Tw (argument was predicated on) Tj 131.4 0 TD -0.0249 Tc 0.0249 Tw ( the benchmark of 25 percent of recovery recognized in certain) Tj -131.4 -14.16 TD -0.1354 Tc 0.0154 Tw (other jurisdictions. Specifically, plaintiffs\222 counsel argued that a 4 perce) Tj 339 0 TD -0.02 Tc 0.02 Tw (nt award was so far) Tj -339 -14.16 TD -0.0091 Tc 0.0091 Tw (removed from that benchmark as to constitute an abuse of discretion.) Tj 36 -28.32 TD -0.1302 Tc 0.0102 Tw (The Second Circuit recognized that in certain ) Tj 215.04 0 TD -0.0198 Tc 0.0198 Tw (jurisdictions 25 percent of recovery is) Tj -251.04 -14.16 TD -0.1408 Tc 0.0208 Tw (a benchmark that generally should be awarded in common fund cases.) Tj 334.8 0 TD -0.0278 Tc 0.0278 Tw ( Indeed, the Second) Tj -6.96 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (28) Tj -327.84 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1344 Tc 0.0144 Tw (Circuit noted, courts in the Ninth Circuit must justify any departure) Tj 314.52 0 TD -0.0076 Tc 0.0076 Tw ( from this benchmark by) Tj -314.52 -14.16 TD 0.1303 Tc 0 Tw (pointin) Tj 34.92 0 TD 0 Tc (g) Tj 5.88 0 TD -0.0073 Tc 1.9273 Tw ( to unusual circumstances.) Tj 139.44 0 TD -0.0123 Tc 1.9323 Tw ( Similarly, \223district courts across the nation hav) Tj 246.48 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -253.68 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (29) Tj -173.04 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1068 Tc (apparently) Tj 51.36 0 TD 0.312 Tc 0.048 Tw ( e) Tj 8.76 0 TD -0.0305 Tc 0.2705 Tw (ased into a practice of \221systematically\222 awarding fees in the 25 percent range) Tj 368.88 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (,) Tj -429 -14.16 TD -0.1663 Tc (\221regard) Tj 33.48 0 TD -0.0087 Tc 0.0087 Tw (less of type of case, benefits to the class, numbers of hours billed, size of fund, size) Tj -33.48 -14.16 TD -0.0221 Tc 0.0221 Tw (of plaintiff class, or any other relevant factor.\222 \224) Tj 228.96 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (30) Tj ET endstream endobj 25 0 obj 10150 endobj 26 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F0 10 0 R /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 27 0 R >> endobj 27 0 obj << /Length 28 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (4) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 36 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1 Tc (But) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.108 Tc 0.612 Tw ( wh) Tj 18.6 0 TD -0.0144 Tc 0.6144 Tw (ile the Second Circuit deemed it a \223commendable sentiment\224 that lawyer) Tj 355.08 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD -0.1315 Tc 0.0115 Tw (should have reasonable monetary incentives to bring cases in the public interest, it disa) Tj 405.6 0 TD -0.0504 Tc 0 Tw (greed) Tj -405.6 -14.16 TD -0.1291 Tc 0.0091 Tw (with the \223essential notion\224 of a benchmark.) Tj 209.64 0 TD -0.1398 Tc 0.0198 Tw ( First, a benchmark could easily lead to rout) Tj 207.72 0 TD -0.008 Tc 0 Tw (ine) Tj -214.56 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc (31) Tj -202.8 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1253 Tc 0.0053 Tw (windfalls for plaintiffs\222 counsel in case) Tj 182.4 0 TD -0.0153 Tc 0.0153 Tw (s where the funds recovered were substantial. More) Tj -182.4 -14.16 TD 0.124 Tc 0 Tw (troubling) Tj 45 0 TD 0 Tc (,) Tj 3 0 TD -0.0136 Tc 2.2936 Tw ( however, was the \223principal analytical error\224 that there exists a substantia) Tj 380.64 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (l) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1344 Tc 0.0144 Tw (contingency risk in all common fund cases. The Second Circuit rejecte) Tj 333.24 0 TD 0.0064 Tc -0.0064 Tw (d this assumption by) Tj -333.24 -14.16 TD 0.0813 Tc 0 Tw (reference) Tj 45.36 0 TD 0.232 Tc 0.248 Tw ( to e) Tj 21.96 0 TD -0.0135 Tc 0.3735 Tw (mpirical and anecdotal data. To begin with, the Court cited a study findin) Tj 358.8 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (g) Tj -426.12 -14.16 TD 0.144 Tc (li) Tj 6.96 0 TD 0.036 Tc (ttle) Tj 15.36 0 TD -0.0199 Tc 0.3799 Tw ( recovery risk in securities class actions because virtually all such cases settle.) Tj 384.36 0 TD -0.006 Tc 0.366 Tw ( Th) Tj 20.04 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -27.24 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (32) Tj -399.48 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1267 Tc 0.0067 Tw (Court then impeached plaintiffs\222 couns) Tj 182.52 0 TD -0.0065 Tc 0.0065 Tw (el with their own statements in a prior litigation that) Tj -182.52 -14.16 TD -0.008 Tc 0.008 Tw (corroborated this empirical conclusion.) Tj 36 -28.32 TD -0.1213 Tc 0.0013 Tw (The Court l) Tj 54 0 TD -0.0153 Tc 0.0153 Tw (ikewise questioned whether a fully informed group of plaintiffs, able to) Tj -90 -14.16 TD -0.008 Tc 0 Tw (negotiate) Tj 43.8 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 8.16 0 TD -0.0358 Tc 5.0758 Tw (collectively, would agree to pay their lawyers a 25 percent fee on) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 374.76 0 TD -0.048 Tc (a) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.0076 Tc (multimillion-dollar) Tj 92.16 0 TD -0.0081 Tc 0.4881 Tw ( settlement. Judge McLaughlin expressed skepticism that plaintiffs ) Tj 0.504 Tc 0 Tw (i) Tj 333.84 0 TD 0 Tc (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.12 Tc (common) Tj 41.28 0 TD -0.1506 Tc -0.2994 Tw ( fund cases generally are fully informed or able to negotiate at ) Tj 287.52 0 TD -0.1327 Tc -0.2273 Tw (arm\222s length, and thu) Tj 98.52 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD 0.096 Tc (reaffirmed) Tj 51.6 0 TD 1.344 Tc -0.024 Tw ( t) Tj 7.8 0 TD -0.013 Tc 1.213 Tw (hat the district court must \223serve as a guardian of the rights of absent clas) Tj 367.92 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -427.32 -14.16 TD -0.0133 Tc (members.\224) Tj 59.4 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj -7.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (33) Tj -16.2 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1317 Tc 0.0117 Tw (The Second Circuit also perceived practical o) Tj 212.76 0 TD -0.0116 Tc 0.0116 Tw (bstacles to benchmarking the lodestar,) Tj -248.76 -14.16 TD -0.012 Tc 0 Tw (since) Tj 24.6 0 TD -0.0273 Tc 0.3873 Tw ( the adversary system essentially is suspended during fee proceedings. As the Cour) Tj 404.04 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD 0.126 Tc (poin) Tj 21.84 0 TD -0.008 Tc (ted) Tj 14.64 0 TD -0.0078 Tc 0.1278 Tw ( out, once a settlement amount has been established, defendants have little interes) Tj 392.16 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD 0.012 Tc (in) Tj 9.36 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.92 0 TD -0.0088 Tc 1.8088 Tw (how those funds are distributed among counsel and their clients, and thus lack an) Tj 412.08 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -426.36 -14.16 TD -0.128 Tc (incentive) Tj 42.84 0 TD -0.1312 Tc -0.1088 Tw ( to oppose the fee.) Tj 91.56 0 TD -0.1582 Tc -0.0618 Tw ( Indeed, that same dynamic ) Tj 132.72 0 TD -0.1312 Tc 0.0112 Tw (\223creates incentives for collusion ) Tj 152.88 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\227) Tj -292.44 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc (34) Tj -127.56 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.112 Tc (the) Tj 15 0 TD 0.1224 Tc 0.4776 Tw ( temptation) Tj 56.16 0 TD -0.0181 Tc 0.4981 Tw ( for the lawyers to agree to a less than optimal settlement \221in exchange fo) Tj 356.88 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (r) Tj -428.04 -14.16 TD 0.084 Tc (red-ca) Tj 30.48 0 TD -0.045 Tc (rpet) Tj 18.6 0 TD -0.016 Tc 1.216 Tw ( treatment on fees.\222\224) Tj 108.48 0 TD -0.0219 Tc 1.2219 Tw ( Ironically, even class members have little incentive ) Tj 1.224 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 268.44 0 TD 0 Tc (o) Tj -275.64 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (35) Tj -150.36 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0247 Tc 0.0247 Tw (object: each member can gain only a small pro rata portion of any fee reduction.) Tj 386.28 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (36) Tj -350.28 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1166 Tc -0.0034 Tw (Thus, th) Tj 38.4 0 TD -0.0469 Tc 0.0469 Tw (e quandary in ) Tj 67.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0102 Tc 0.0102 Tw ( arises from the fact that the Court \223cannot know) Tj -198.12 -14.16 TD -0.0133 Tc 0 Tw (precisely) Tj 42.84 0 TD -0.0094 Tc 0.116 Tw ( what fees common fund plaintiffs in an efficient ) Tj 238.32 0 TD -0.0169 Tc 0.0169 Tw (market for legal services would) Tj -281.16 -14.16 TD -0.1422 Tc 0.0222 Tw (agree to, given an understanding of the particular case and the ability t) Tj 327.48 0 TD -0.024 Tc 0.024 Tw (o engage in collective) Tj -327.48 -14.16 TD 0.096 Tc 0 Tw (arm\222) Tj 23.04 0 TD -0.018 Tc (s-length) Tj 38.52 0 TD -0.0085 Tc 0.1285 Tw ( negotiation with counsel.\224) Tj 136.68 0 TD -0.0195 Tc 0.1245 Tw ( Accordingly, the Second Circuit required that ) Tj 228.48 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (a) Tj -235.68 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (37) Tj -191.04 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.102 Tc (\223s) Tj 10.2 0 TD -0.0195 Tc (earching) Tj 41.04 0 TD -0.0173 Tc 1.5773 Tw ( assessment\224 be performed by the district court in each case based upon th) Tj 375.48 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.0138 Tc (circumstances) Tj 67.8 0 TD -0.0153 Tc 0.1353 Tw ( of that case.) Tj 68.04 0 TD -0.0147 Tc 0.1147 Tw ( Under the particular circumstances ) Tj 176.88 0 TD 0.012 Tc -0.012 Tw (in ) Tj 12.36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc -0 Tw (, the Court) Tj -252.36 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (38) Tj -128.64 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1067 Tc (concluded) Tj 50.28 0 TD 0.112 Tc 0.848 Tw ( tha) Tj 18.96 0 TD -0.0096 Tc 0.8496 Tw (t a fee award of 4 percent did not constitute an abuse of discretion simpl) Tj 357.12 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -426.36 -14.16 TD -0.0168 Tc 0.0168 Tw (because it deviated materially from time-tested benchmarks.) Tj 288.72 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (39) Tj -288.72 -33.36 TD /F0 12 Tf -0.0066 Tc 0.0066 Tw (Lodestar Enhancements) Tj 36 -28.08 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.114 Tc 0 Tw (As) Tj 13.56 0 TD 0.108 Tc 0.252 Tw ( the Sec) Tj 39.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0.1793 Tw (ond Circuit stated in ) Tj 101.64 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0053 Tc 0.2053 Tw (, the district court\222s determination of ) Tj 180.24 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (a) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.0392 Tc 0.0392 Tw (reasonable fee should be guided by:) Tj 36 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.016 Tc 0.016 Tw (the time and labor expended by counsel;) Tj -23.4 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.0039 Tc 0.0039 Tw (the magnitude and complexities of the litigation;) Tj ET endstream endobj 28 0 obj 8992 endobj 29 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 30 0 R >> endobj 30 0 obj << /Length 31 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (5) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 36 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.0037 Tc 0.0037 Tw (the risk of the litigation;) Tj -23.4 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.0204 Tc 0.0204 Tw (the quality of representation;) Tj -23.4 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.0085 Tc 0.0085 Tw (the requested fee in relation to the settlement; and) Tj -23.4 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.0164 Tc 0.0164 Tw (public policy considerations.) Tj 137.88 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (40) Tj -161.28 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1095 Tc (Focusing) Tj 44.76 0 TD -0.0208 Tc 0.5008 Tw ( particularly on the risk and quality of representation factors, the Secon) Tj 345.24 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.114 Tc (Circ) Tj 21.12 0 TD 0.016 Tc (uit) Tj 12.72 0 TD -0.0127 Tc 0.7327 Tw ( ruled that the district court did not commit reversible error in refusing to apply) Tj 0 Tc -0.36 Tw ( ) Tj 392.88 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (a) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.0026 Tc 0.0026 Tw (multiplier to its 4 percent lodestar.) Tj 36 -28.32 TD -0.138 Tc 0 Tw (In) Tj 9.96 0 TD 0.126 Tc 0.174 Tw ( so ) Tj 17.88 0 TD -0.0098 Tc 0.3698 Tw (holding, the Second Circuit first noted that, while it had previously reverse) Tj 362.16 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.132 Tc (district) Tj 32.4 0 TD -0.1329 Tc -0.3471 Tw ( courts for overcompensating class counsel,) Tj 208.68 0 TD -0.1332 Tc -0.2568 Tw ( it had never ) Tj 59.4 0 TD -0.131 Tc -0.229 Tw (found an abuse of discretio) Tj 125.52 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -191.76 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc (41) Tj -234.24 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1114 Tc (because) Tj 38.64 0 TD 2.592 Tc 0.048 Tw ( a) Tj 11.04 0 TD -0.0248 Tc 2.5448 Tw ( common fund award was \223too stingy.\224) Tj 209.88 0 TD -0.0082 Tc 2.5282 Tw ( The Court declined to take tha) Tj 169.08 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -176.28 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (42) Tj -252.36 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0126 Tc 0.0126 Tw (unprecedented step in ) Tj 107.4 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0345 Tc 0.0345 Tw ( because:) Tj -127.32 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.1329 Tc -0.0771 Tw (plaintiffs\222 counsel benefitted substantially ) Tj 198.72 0 TD -0.0248 Tc 0.0248 Tw (from the work already completed by) Tj -222.12 -14.16 TD -0.1474 Tc 0.0274 Tw (federal ) Tj 35.16 0 TD -0.0069 Tc 0.0069 Tw (authorities during the criminal and civil actions against Drexel and Milken;) Tj -35.16 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.0142 Tc 0.0142 Tw (\223\221there was no groundbreaking issue which loomed significant in this case;\222\224) Tj -23.4 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD -0.128 Tc (the) Tj 14.28 0 TD -0.1354 Tc -0.2006 Tw ( risk of nonpayment was slim because most of the ) Tj 233.76 0 TD -0.1369 Tc -0.1031 Tw (defendants either had dee) Tj 118.56 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (p) Tj -390 -14.16 TD -0.018 Tc 0.018 Tw (pockets or adequate liability insurance; ) Tj 0 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD 0.148 Tc (use) Tj 16.32 0 TD 0.096 Tc 1.104 Tw ( of cur) Tj 34.2 0 TD -0.0303 Tc 1.1103 Tw (rent hourly billing rates for work completed years ago adequatel) Tj 316.44 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -390.36 -14.16 TD -0.0269 Tc 0.0269 Tw (compensated counsel for the delay in payment; and ) Tj 0 -28.32 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (\225) Tj 23.4 0 TD 0.148 Tc (use) Tj 16.32 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.08 0 TD -0.023 Tc 0.983 Tw (of high hourly billing rates compensated counsel for the quality of thei) Tj 348.24 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (r) Tj -392.04 -14.16 TD -0.0297 Tc 0.0297 Tw (representation and any risk they assumed.) Tj 199.56 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (43) Tj -199.56 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.258 Tc (In) Tj 9.72 0 TD -0.0129 Tc 1.0929 Tw ( addition, the Court rejected counsels\222 claims that they had overcome the hig) Tj 380.28 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (h) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.108 Tc (hur) Tj 16.32 0 TD 0.032 Tc (dle) Tj 14.64 0 TD -0.0138 Tc 0.1338 Tw ( of proving scienter, finding that this \223obstacle\224 was encountered by all plaintiffs i) Tj 395.04 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.1246 Tc 0.0046 Tw (all Rule 10\(b\)\(5\) securities suits.) Tj 159.48 0 TD -0.0066 Tc 0.0066 Tw ( Moreover, because litigation risk is assessed at the time) Tj -6.84 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (44) Tj -152.64 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.112 Tc (the) Tj 15 0 TD 0.072 Tc 0.168 Tw ( ca) Tj 14.04 0 TD -0.0127 Tc 0.1327 Tw (se is filed, there was no risk in bringing \223aiding and abetting\224 claims against Drexe) Tj 399.6 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (l) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD 0.104 Tc (and) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.1224 Tc 0.8376 Tw ( Milke) Tj 33.24 0 TD -0.0176 Tc 0.8576 Tw (n simply because the Supreme Court abolished aiding and abetting liability ) Tj 0.864 Tc 0 Tw (i) Tj 375.12 0 TD 0 Tc (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.1444 Tc 0.0244 Tw (\247 10\(b\) litigation years later.) Tj 139.44 0 TD -0.1366 Tc 0.0166 Tw ( The Second Circuit specifically concluded that there was l) Tj 277.92 0 TD -0.012 Tc 0 Tw (ow) Tj -284.76 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc (45) Tj -132.6 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (risk) Tj 18 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0.048 Tw ( in ) Tj 15.6 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0131 Tc 0.1222 Tw ( because, as the district court found, the case was \223promising\224 ) Tj 301.56 0 TD -0.0103 Tc 0.0103 Tw (from the) Tj -391.08 -14.16 TD -0.0468 Tc 0.0468 Tw (very start.) Tj 47.52 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (46) Tj -11.52 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.114 Tc (Th) Tj 13.56 0 TD -0.048 Tc (e) Tj 5.28 0 TD -0.0182 Tc 0.2364 Tw ( Second Circuit also analyzed the quality of the representation in ) Tj 315.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (.) Tj 3 0 TD ( ) Tj -429 -14.16 TD -0.143 Tc 0.023 Tw (In particular, the Court rec) Tj 123.72 0 TD -0.0232 Tc 0.0232 Tw (ognized the success actually achieved by plaintiffs\222 counsel, and) Tj -123.72 -14.16 TD -0.1292 Tc 0.0092 Tw (cited statements by District Judge Milton Pollack that counsels\222 work in related ) Tj 374.28 0 TD -0.0349 Tc 0 Tw (proceedings) Tj -374.28 -14.16 TD 0.104 Tc (had) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.096 Tc 2.184 Tw ( been ) Tj 2.28 Tc 0 Tw (o) Tj 39.72 0 TD -0.0455 Tc 2.2055 Tw (f the highest quality.) Tj 111.84 0 TD -0.0203 Tc 2.1803 Tw ( Commenting more broadly, the Court agreed wit) Tj 256.8 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (h) Tj -264 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (47) Tj ET endstream endobj 31 0 obj 7534 endobj 32 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 33 0 R >> endobj 33 0 obj << /Length 34 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (6) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 0 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1244 Tc (plaintiffs\222) Tj 45.96 0 TD -0.1416 Tc -0.1704 Tw ( counsel that quality of ) Tj 108.36 0 TD -0.1371 Tc -0.1029 Tw (representation is best measured by concrete results, throug) Tj 271.68 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (h) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.048 Tc (a) Tj 5.4 0 TD 0.114 Tc 0.966 Tw ( comparison of th) Tj 89.16 0 TD -0.0238 Tc 0.9838 Tw (e amount of possible recovery with the amount actually recovered.) Tj 334.44 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj -7.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf (48) Tj -421.8 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1035 Tc (Accordin) Tj 45.48 0 TD 0 Tc (g) Tj 5.88 0 TD -0.0184 Tc 0.8584 Tw ( to the Court, however, the amount of possible recovery is not necessarily th) Tj 375.36 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD -0.12 Tc (amount) Tj 35.28 0 TD -0.1393 Tc -0.0767 Tw ( of \223provable\224 damages, but ) Tj 133.56 0 TD -0.1393 Tc 0.0193 Tw (rather should be measured by actual market losses.) Tj 243.96 0 TD -0.084 Tc -0.036 Tw ( B) Tj 13.56 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -20.4 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc (49) Tj -405.96 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0143 Tc 0.0143 Tw (that measure, plaintiffs\222 counsel did not achieve as superior a result as they claimed.) Tj 36 -28.32 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (Fu) Tj 12.84 0 TD -0.0156 Tc (rthermore,) Tj 50.16 0 TD -0.0168 Tc 2.1768 Tw ( the Second Circuit reasoned that the size of a recovery does no) Tj 329.64 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1342 Tc (necessarily) Tj 51.48 0 TD -0.1392 Tc -0.1008 Tw ( correlate with the quality of the representation. After all, \223\221a large settlement ca) Tj 374.52 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.1346 Tc 0.0146 Tw (as much reflect t) Tj 77.4 0 TD -0.0108 Tc 0.0108 Tw (he number of potential class members or the scope of the defendant\222s past) Tj -77.4 -14.16 TD -0.1304 Tc 0.0104 Tw (acts as it can indicate the p) Tj 124.92 0 TD -0.0128 Tc 0.0128 Tw (restige, skill, and vigor of the class\222s counsel.\222\224) Tj 234.6 0 TD -0.0388 Tc 0.0388 Tw ( In this regard,) Tj -7.2 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (50) Tj -352.32 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.128 Tc (the) Tj 14.28 0 TD -0.1217 Tc -0.1012 Tw ( Court noted that Drexel and Milken ) Tj 172.44 0 TD -0.1432 Tc 0.0232 Tw (had been convicted of conduct bearing directly upo) Tj 239.28 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.1307 Tc 0.0107 Tw (the claims advanced in ) Tj 109.68 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1272 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 54.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.137 Tc 0.017 Tw (. Not only did that aid plaintiffs\222 case \223en) Tj 195.96 0 TD -0.0277 Tc 0.0277 Tw (ormously,\224 but) Tj -360.36 -14.16 TD -0.122 Tc 0.002 Tw (a sizable port) Tj 62.28 0 TD -0.0114 Tc 0.0114 Tw (ion of counsels\222 lodestar in fact had been based upon hours spent researching) Tj -62.28 -14.16 TD 0.112 Tc 0 Tw (the) Tj 15 0 TD 0.087 Tc 0.993 Tw ( reco) Tj 25.08 0 TD -0.016 Tc 0.976 Tw (rds of these prior proceedings.) Tj 156.24 0 TD -0.0302 Tc 0.9902 Tw ( In any event, the district court) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 159.84 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.008 Tc (did) Tj 15.36 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0227 Tc 0.9827 Tw ( compensat) Tj 55.2 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -237.6 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc (51) Tj -189.12 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1375 Tc 0.0175 Tw (plaintiffs\222 counsel for the quality of their repres) Tj 221.4 0 TD -0.0158 Tc 0.0158 Tw (entation by allowing them to recover billing) Tj -221.4 -14.16 TD -0.0144 Tc 0.0144 Tw (rates at the high end of the prevailing market \227 in some cases as high as $550 per hour.) Tj 421.92 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (52) Tj -385.92 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.02 Tc (The) Tj 18.6 0 TD -0 Tc 1.4404 Tw ( Second Circuit concluded its opinion in) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 206.4 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0373 Tc 1.4773 Tw ( by signaling the broa) Tj 109.08 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -426 -14.16 TD 0.1152 Tc (discretion) Tj 48.48 0 TD -0.0169 Tc 2.2969 Tw ( it will accord district courts so that they most appropriately can determin) Tj 378.24 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.099 Tc (reasonab) Tj 43.44 0 TD 0.048 Tc (le) Tj 8.64 0 TD -0.0225 Tc 0.8625 Tw ( attorney\222s fees in common fund cases \227 particularly where the district cour) Tj 376.56 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj -428.64 -14.16 TD -0.1398 Tc 0.0198 Tw (respects the \223preference for moderation.\224) Tj 199.44 0 TD -0.1232 Tc 0.0032 Tw ( The Second Circuit thu) Tj 114.72 0 TD -0.0069 Tc 0.0069 Tw (s continues to harbor the) Tj -121.56 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (53) Tj -192.6 -18.96 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.0754 Tc (\223naggin) Tj 38.52 0 TD 0 Tc (g) Tj 5.88 0 TD -0.0117 Tc 1.3317 Tw ( suspicion\224 that plaintiffs\222 counsel in class action representations routinely ar) Tj 382.32 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -426.72 -14.16 TD 0.0936 Tc (overc) Tj 27.12 0 TD -0.0076 Tc (ompensated.) Tj 60.24 0 TD 0.0099 Tc 1.0701 Tw ( With its decision in) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 109.32 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0037 Tc 1.0837 Tw (, the Second Circuit is attempting ) Tj 1.104 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 173.4 0 TD 0 Tc (o) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.018 Tc (remedy) Tj 35.52 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.24 0 TD -0.0199 Tc 0.1399 Tw (that problem and suggesting to district courts that they, too, move aggressively o) Tj 387.24 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -426 -14.16 TD -0.0101 Tc 0.0101 Tw (this front, without fear of reversal.) Tj 164.64 4.8 TD /F2 7.2 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (54) Tj 28.92 -33.12 TD /F2 12 Tf (* * *) Tj -193.56 -28.32 TD -0.1274 Tc 0.0074 Tw (Martin Flumenb) Tj 76.56 0 TD -0.0139 Tc 0.0139 Tw (aum and Brad S. Karp are partners in the New York office of Paul, Weiss,) Tj -76.56 -14.16 TD -0.0058 Tc 0.0058 Tw (Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.) Tj ET endstream endobj 34 0 obj 6865 endobj 35 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 36 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F0 10 0 R /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 37 0 R >> endobj 36 0 obj << /Kids [ 35 0 R 39 0 R 42 0 R 45 0 R ] /Count 4 /Type /Pages /Parent 48 0 R >> endobj 37 0 obj << /Length 38 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (7) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 0 603.84 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (1.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.186 Tc (Pr) Tj 10.92 0 TD 0.0144 Tc (ivate) Tj 23.28 0 TD -0.0128 Tc 0.4928 Tw ( Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, \247 107, 10) Tj 355.8 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (9) Tj -390 -14.16 TD -0.0013 Tc 0.0013 Tw (Stat. 737, 758 \(1995\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (2.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.1224 Tc (Ralph) Tj 29.28 0 TD 3.336 Tc 0.024 Tw ( K) Tj 15.12 0 TD 0.0045 Tc 3.2355 Tw (. Winter,) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 51.84 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0018 Tc 3.2418 Tw (Paying Lawyers) Tj 80.88 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (, ) Tj 9.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0021 Tc 3.2421 Tw (Empowering Prosecutors, and Protectin) Tj 203.64 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (g) Tj -390 -14.16 TD 0.0015 Tc -0.0015 Tw (Managers; Raising the Cost of Capital in America) Tj 242.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0106 Tc 0.0106 Tw (, 42 Duke L.J. 945, 984 \(1993\).) Tj -278.4 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (3.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0155 Tc 0.0155 Tw (2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 \(2d Cir. Mar. 28, 2000\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (4.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.008 Tc (Savoie) Tj 31.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0111 Tc 0.0111 Tw (Merchants Bank) Tj 78.84 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0041 Tc 0.0041 Tw (, 166 F.3d. 456, 460 \(2d Cir. 1999\).) Tj -161.76 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (5.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.024 Tc 0.024 Tw (See, e.g., ) Tj 46.44 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Brown) Tj 32.04 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.003 Tc -0.003 Tw (Phillips Petroleum Co.) Tj 110.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0047 Tc 0.0047 Tw (, 838 F.2d 451, 454-55 \(10th Cir.\)) Tj -239.88 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (6.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.104 Tc (See) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.72 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0055 Tc 0.7145 Tw (City of Detroit) Tj 71.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.72 Tw ( v.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 16.44 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0046 Tc 0.7154 Tw (Grinnell Corp.) Tj 72.12 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0049 Tc 0.7249 Tw (, 495 F.2d 448, 470-71 \(2d Cir. 1974\) \(onl) Tj 208.92 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -390.36 -14.16 TD 0.132 Tc (lodesta) Tj 34.8 0 TD -0.036 Tc (r) Tj 3.96 0 TD -0.0194 Tc 1.3394 Tw ( method can \223claim objectivity\224\);) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 169.68 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.008 Tc (cf.) Tj 11.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.32 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0 Tc 1.32 Tw (In re \223Agent Orange\224 Prod. Liab) Tj 168.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD 0.14 Tc (Litig.) Tj 26.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (,) Tj 3.12 0 TD 0.12 Tc 0.84 Tw ( 818) Tj 0 Tc 0.12 Tw ( ) Tj 26.28 0 TD -0.0054 Tc 0.8454 Tw (F.2d 226, 232 \(2d Cir. 1987\) \(Second Circuit has \223adopted a lodesta) Tj 336.12 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (r) Tj -392.04 -14.16 TD -0.0155 Tc 0.0155 Tw (formula for calculating fees\224 in common fund cases\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (7.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.136 Tc 0.016 Tw (See ) Tj 19.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1272 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 54.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1687 Tc 0.0487 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS) Tj 114.84 0 TD -0.006 Tc 0.006 Tw ( 5152 at *3; see also ) Tj 100.56 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0134 Tc 0.0134 Tw (In re Drexel Burnham) Tj -289.92 -14.16 TD -0.0052 Tc 0.0052 Tw (Lambert Group Inc.) Tj 96.24 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.004 Tc 0.004 Tw (, 995 F.2d 1138, 1142 \(2d Cir. 1993\).) Tj -132.24 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (8.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.1269 Tc 0.0069 Tw (The plaintiffs also na) Tj 98.88 0 TD -0.0209 Tc 0.0209 Tw (med as defendants some of Integrated\222s officers and directors,) Tj -98.88 -14.16 TD -0.1248 Tc 0.0048 Tw (Drexel, Milken, and Touche Ro) Tj 149.04 0 TD -0.018 Tc 0.018 Tw (ss & Co., Integrated\222s outside auditor. ) Tj 188.04 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (,) Tj -393 -14.16 TD -0.0208 Tc 0.0208 Tw (2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *4.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (9.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0065 Tc 0.0065 Tw (See id. at *5-6.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (10.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0044 Tc 0.0044 Tw (See id. at *6.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (11.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.004 Tc 0.004 Tw (See id.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (12.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0375 Tc 0.0375 Tw (Id. at *7.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (13.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.02 Tc 0.02 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *8.) Tj -91.92 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (14.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0305 Tc 0.0305 Tw (Id. at *9-10.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (15.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.136 Tc (See) Tj 16.92 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 2.76 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.135 Tc -0.105 Tw (M. Herman) Tj 54 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc -0.06 Tw ( v. ) Tj 14.28 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1206 Tc 0 Tw (Davis Acoustical Corp) Tj 106.8 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1233 Tc 0.0033 Tw (., 196 F.3d 354, 356 \(2d Cir. 1999\); ) Tj 169.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0888 Tc 0 Tw (Kirsc) Tj 25.44 0 TD 0 Tc (h) Tj -390 -14.16 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc (v. ) Tj 11.64 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1216 Tc 0.0016 Tw (Fleet Street, Ltd) Tj 75.6 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj 3 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0034 Tc 0.0034 Tw (, 148 F.3d 149, 172 \(2d Cir. 1998\); ) Tj 171.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.006 Tc 0.006 Tw (In re Bolar Pharm. Co. Sec.) Tj -261.48 -14.16 TD 0.02 Tc 0 Tw (Litig.) Tj 25.8 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0092 Tc 0.0092 Tw (, 966 F.2d 731, 732 \(2d Cir. 1992\) \(per curiam\).) Tj -61.8 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (16.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0186 Tc 0.0186 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *12-13.) Tj 91.08 590.4 TD /F0 12 Tf 0.0135 Tc 0 Tw (ENDNOTES) Tj ET endstream endobj 38 0 obj 6513 endobj 39 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 36 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 40 0 R >> endobj 40 0 obj << /Length 41 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (8) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 0 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (17.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.012 Tc (See,) Tj 20.28 0 TD -0.0336 Tc 0.0936 Tw ( e.g., ) Tj 26.4 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0053 Tc 0 Tw (Rosenfeld) Tj 47.28 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0168 Tc (Black) Tj 27.24 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0054 Tc 0.0054 Tw (, 56 FRD 604, 605-06 \(S.D.N.Y. 1972\); ) Tj 194.16 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0387 Tc 0 Tw (Winkelman) Tj 53.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v.) Tj -384 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1333 Tc 0.0133 Tw (General Mo) Tj 57 0 TD 0.0107 Tc -0.0107 Tw (tors Corp.) Tj 49.44 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0043 Tc 0.0043 Tw (, 48 F. Supp. 504 \(S.D.N.Y. 1942\), ) Tj 170.88 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0 Tc -0 Tw (aff\222d sub nom) Tj 66 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.012 Tc -0.012 Tw (.; ) Tj 9.36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.002 Tc 0 Tw (Singer) Tj 31.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v.) Tj -384 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0013 Tc 0.0013 Tw (General Motors Corp.) Tj 107.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.005 Tc 0.005 Tw (, 136 F.2d 905 \(2d Cir. 1943\).) Tj -143.64 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (18.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0052 Tc 0.0052 Tw (495 F.2d 448 \(2d Cir. 1974\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (19.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.258 Tc 0.138 Tw (In ) Tj 12.36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1185 Tc 0 Tw (Grinnell) Tj 39.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.126 Tc 0.006 Tw (, the ) Tj 22.92 0 TD -0.0167 Tc 0.0167 Tw (Second Circuit reversed and remanded a 15 percent fee award with) Tj -75 -14.16 TD -0.117 Tc 0 Tw (instructions) Tj 54.6 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 2.52 0 TD -0.1333 Tc -0.2267 Tw (to conduct the \223mathematical exercise\224 of calculating a lodestar, becaus) Tj 333.6 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -390.72 -14.16 TD -0.1248 Tc 0.0048 Tw (that method alone could \223claim objectivi) Tj 190.68 0 TD -0.0289 Tc 0.0289 Tw (ty.\224 495 F.2d at 470-71. Indeed, when the) Tj -190.68 -14.16 TD -0.1418 Tc 0.0218 Tw (case returned several years later with a lodestar amounting to 10 percent of recove) Tj 383.4 0 TD -0.252 Tc 0 Tw (ry,) Tj -383.4 -14.16 TD -0.1389 Tc 0.0189 Tw (the Second Circuit again reversed the fee award as ) Tj 238.68 0 TD -0.0055 Tc 0.0055 Tw (excessive. See ) Tj 75.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0055 Tc -0.0055 Tw (City of Detroit) Tj 70.08 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( v.) Tj -384 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0046 Tc -0.0046 Tw (Grinnell Corp.) Tj 71.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0034 Tc 0.0034 Tw (, 560 F.2d 1093, 1095, 1103 \(2d Cir. 1977\).) Tj -107.4 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (20.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.012 Tc (See,) Tj 20.28 0 TD -0.0336 Tc 1.3536 Tw ( e.g.,) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 28.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0015 Tc (Copeland) Tj 46.68 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 1.32 Tw ( v.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 17.64 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0045 Tc (Marshall) Tj 44.04 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0088 Tc 1.3288 Tw (, 641 F.2d 880, 890 \(D.C. Cir. 1980\) \(en banc\)) Tj 235.2 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (;) Tj -392.64 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1166 Tc (Furtado) Tj 38.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc -0.12 Tw ( v. ) Tj 14.04 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.116 Tc 0 Tw (Bishop) Tj 32.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1221 Tc -0.1029 Tw (, 635 F.2d 915, 920 \(1st Cir. 1980\); ) Tj 167.88 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.118 Tc 0 Tw (Grunin) Tj 33.96 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc -0.06 Tw ( v. ) Tj 14.28 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1193 Tc -0.1207 Tw (International Hous) Tj 89.4 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -390.72 -14.16 TD 0.132 Tc (of) Tj 9.6 0 TD 0.114 Tc 2.286 Tw ( Pa) Tj 18.96 0 TD -0.022 Tc 0 Tw (ncakes) Tj 32.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0025 Tc 2.2825 Tw (, 513 F.2d 114, 128 \(8th Cir. 1975\);) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 192.84 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0016 Tc 2.2816 Tw (Lindy Bros. Builders Inc.) Tj 127.8 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 2.28 Tc 0 Tw ( v) Tj 11.28 0 TD 0 Tc (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.108 Tc (American) Tj 47.52 0 TD 0.468 Tc 0.012 Tw ( R) Tj 10.92 0 TD -0.0103 Tc 0.3703 Tw (adiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.) Tj 170.16 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0032 Tc 0.3632 Tw (, 540 F.2d 102, 112 \(3d Cir. 1976) Tj 163.44 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (\)) Tj -392.04 -14.16 TD -0.109 Tc 0.109 Tw (\(\223Lindy II\224\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (21.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.104 Tc (See) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.68 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.108 Tc (Savo) Tj 23.76 0 TD 0.048 Tc (ie) Tj 8.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 1.56 Tw ( v.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 18.12 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0111 Tc 1.5711 Tw (Merchants Bank) Tj 80.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0034 Tc 1.5634 Tw (, 166 F.3d 456, 461 \(2d Cir. 1999\);) Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw ( ) Tj 183.72 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.009 Tc 1.569 Tw (In re Unio) Tj 53.04 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -390 -14.16 TD -0.1166 Tc (Carbide) Tj 38.52 0 TD -0.1184 Tc -0.1936 Tw ( Corp. Consumer Prod. Bus. ) Tj 135.6 0 TD -0.1176 Tc -0.1224 Tw (Sec. Litig.) Tj 46.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1241 Tc -0.1159 Tw (, 724 F. Supp. 160, 167-68 \(S.D.N.Y) Tj 171.96 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD -0.006 Tc (1989\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc (22.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0193 Tc 0.0193 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *15.) Tj -91.92 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (23.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.003 Tc (Blum) Tj 25.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0017 Tc (Stenson) Tj 37.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0018 Tc 0.0018 Tw (, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n.16 \(1984\).) Tj -113.64 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (24.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.012 Tc (See,) Tj 20.28 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.2 0 TD -0.0336 Tc 0.0336 Tw (e.g., ) Tj 24.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0029 Tc 1.0771 Tw (In re General Motors Corp. Liab. Litig.) Tj 196.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 1.08 Tw (, 55 F.3d 768, 821-22 \(3d Cir) Tj 147.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD -0.002 Tc (1995\);) Tj 31.32 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 5.16 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0035 Tc 2.0365 Tw (Swedish Hosp. Corp.) Tj 105.48 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 2.04 Tw ( v.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 19.08 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0069 Tc (Shalala) Tj 36.72 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0037 Tc 2.0437 Tw (, 1 F.3d 1261, 1271 \(D.C. Cir. 1993\)) Tj 194.88 0 TD 0.024 Tc 0 Tw (;) Tj -392.64 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0026 Tc 0.0026 Tw (Camden I Condominium Ass\222n) Tj 147.6 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.004 Tc (Dunkle) Tj 34.56 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0032 Tc 0.0032 Tw (, 946 F.2d 768, 774 \(11th Cir. 1991\).) Tj -233.16 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (25.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.136 Tc 0.016 Tw (See ) Tj 19.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1215 Tc 0 Tw (Johnston) Tj 42.36 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc ( v. ) Tj 14.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1224 Tc 0.0024 Tw (Comerica Mortgage Corp) Tj 122.64 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1104 Tc -0.0096 Tw (., 83 F) Tj 29.76 0 TD -0.0013 Tc 0.0013 Tw (.3d 241, 244-46 \(8th Cir. 1996\); ) Tj 156.96 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.018 Tc 0 Tw (In) Tj -386.04 -14.16 TD -0.1198 Tc -0 Tw (re Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of The San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire L) Tj 358.92 0 TD 0.0144 Tc 0 Tw (itig.) Tj 19.08 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (, 56) Tj -378 -14.16 TD -0.1224 Tc 0.0024 Tw (F.3d 295, 305 \(1st Cir. 1995\); ) Tj 142.56 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1095 Tc 0 Tw (Rawlings) Tj 43.8 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc ( v. ) Tj 14.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1274 Tc 0.0074 Tw (Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc.) Tj 159.12 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.104 Tc -0.016 Tw (, 9 F) Tj 21 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.3d) Tj -381 -14.16 TD 0.12 Tc (513,) Tj 21.48 0 TD 0.1183 Tc 0.3617 Tw ( 516 \(6th) Tj 45.12 0 TD 0.0012 Tc 0.2388 Tw ( Cir. 1993\); ) Tj 59.76 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.006 Tc 0 Tw (Harman) Tj 39.96 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.18 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15.72 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.012 Tc 0.372 Tw (Lyphomed, Inc.) Tj 74.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.0027 Tc 0.3573 Tw (, 945 F.2d 969, 975 \(7th Cir) Tj 136.44 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD -0.122 Tc 0.002 Tw (1991\); ) Tj 33.48 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.138 Tc 0.018 Tw (Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt) Tj 140.88 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw ( v. ) Tj 14.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1046 Tc (Graulty) Tj 36.48 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.152 Tc 0.032 Tw (, 886 F.) Tj 35.64 0 TD 0 Tc -0 Tw (2d 268, 272 \(9th Cir. 1989\);) Tj -261 -14.16 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1128 Tc 0 Tw (Brown) Tj 31.44 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc -0.18 Tw ( v. ) Tj 13.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.117 Tc -0.363 Tw (Phillips Petroleum Co.) Tj 107.04 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1242 Tc -0.2958 Tw (, 838 F.2d 451, 454 \(10th ) Tj 119.64 0 TD -0.1249 Tc -0.1751 Tw (Cir. 1988\); see also ) Tj 92.76 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1248 Tc 0 Tw (Savoi) Tj 26.04 0 TD -0.048 Tc (e) Tj -390.72 -14.16 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (v.) Tj 9 0 TD ( ) Tj 3.12 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0111 Tc 0.1311 Tw (Merchants Bank) Tj 78.96 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (, ) Tj 6.12 0 TD -0.0152 Tc 0.0152 Tw (166 F.3d 456, 460 \(2d Cir. 1999\) \(\223the percentage-of-the-fund) Tj -97.2 -14.16 TD -0.0095 Tc 0.0095 Tw (method is a viable alternative\224\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (26.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.12 Tc (Goldb) Tj 30.6 0 TD -0.012 Tc (erger,) Tj 28.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0191 Tc 1.0991 Tw ( 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *20 \(quoting) Tj 0 Tc -0.12 Tw ( ) Tj 230.4 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0098 Tc 1.0898 Tw (In re General Motor) Tj 101.4 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj -391.32 -14.16 TD 0.015 Tc -0.015 Tw (Corp. Liab. Litig.) Tj 84.6 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0056 Tc 0.0056 Tw (, 55 F.3d 768, 820 \(3d Cir. 1995\)\).) Tj -120.6 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (27.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0333 Tc 0.0333 Tw (Id. at *23.) Tj ET endstream endobj 41 0 obj 10285 endobj 42 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 36 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 43 0 R >> endobj 43 0 obj << /Length 44 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 270.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (9) Tj -426 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 0 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (28.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.104 Tc (See) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.36 0 TD -0.0067 Tc 0.1567 Tw (id. at *24 \(quoting ) Tj 92.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0034 Tc 0.2434 Tw (In re Pacific Enters. Sec. Litig.) Tj 149.76 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.0029 Tc 0.2371 Tw (, 47 F.3d 373, 379 \(9th Cir) Tj 129.72 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD -0.0103 Tc (1995\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc (29.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.132 Tc -0.028 Tw (See id. \(citing ) Tj 67.92 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.138 Tc 0.018 Tw (Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt) Tj 140.88 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw ( v. ) Tj 14.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1046 Tc (Graulty) Tj 36.48 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.1303 Tc 0.0103 Tw (, 886 F.2) Tj 41.52 0 TD 0.0008 Tc -0.0008 Tw (d 268, 272 \(9th Cir.) Tj -301.32 -14.16 TD -0.0103 Tc 0 Tw (1989\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc (30.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.028 Tc (Id.) Tj 13.08 0 TD 0.1152 Tc 1.2048 Tw ( at *24) Tj 35.88 0 TD -0.0131 Tc 1.2131 Tw (-25 \(quoting) Tj 0 Tc -0.12 Tw ( ) Tj 64.92 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0035 Tc 1.2035 Tw (Court Awarded Attorney Fees) Tj 147.84 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.003 Tc 1.203 Tw (, 108 F.R.D. 237, 274 n.3) Tj 128.28 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (2) Tj -390 -14.16 TD -0.0135 Tc (\(1985\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc (31.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0193 Tc 0.0193 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *25.) Tj -91.92 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (32.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.104 Tc (See) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0.128 Tc 0.472 Tw ( id.) Tj 16.32 0 TD -0.0062 Tc 0.4176 Tw ( at *27 \(citing Janet Cooper Alexander, ) Tj 195.12 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.005 Tc 0.485 Tw (Do the Merits Matter? A Study ) Tj 0.48 Tc 0 Tw (o) Tj 163.56 0 TD 0.024 Tc (f) Tj -392.64 -14.16 TD -0 Tc 0 Tw (Settlements in Securities Class Actions) Tj 186 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.012 Tc 0.012 Tw (, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 497, 578 \(1991\)\).) Tj -222 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (33.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.092 Tc (Id.) Tj 12.72 0 TD -0.0102 Tc 0.0702 Tw ( at *28 \(quoting ) Tj 79.68 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0055 Tc 0.1145 Tw (City of Detroit) Tj 70.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0046 Tc 0.1154 Tw (Grinnell Corp.) Tj 71.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0042 Tc 0.1002 Tw (, 560 F.2d 1093, 1099 ) Tj 109.2 0 TD -0.0017 Tc 0.0017 Tw (\(2d Cir.) Tj -358.68 -14.16 TD -0.0047 Tc 0.0047 Tw (1977\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (34.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0056 Tc 0.0056 Tw (See id. at *28-29.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (35.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.092 Tc (Id.) Tj 12.72 0 TD -0.0102 Tc 0.0702 Tw ( at *29 \(quoting ) Tj 79.68 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0372 Tc 0 Tw (Weinberger) Tj 56.28 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.12 Tw (Great N. Nekoosa Corp) Tj 114.36 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw (., ) Tj 9.12 0 TD -0.004 Tc 0.004 Tw (925 F.2d 518, 524 \(1st) Tj -287.4 -14.16 TD -0.0044 Tc 0.0044 Tw (Cir. 1991\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (36.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.016 Tc 0.016 Tw (See ) Tj 20.28 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0193 Tc 0.0193 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *29.) Tj -112.2 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (37.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.028 Tc 0.028 Tw (Id. at *25-26.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (38.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.028 Tc (Id.) Tj 13.08 0 TD 0.232 Tc 0.248 Tw ( at *) Tj 21.96 0 TD -0.0141 Tc 0.3741 Tw (26, *30-31. Citing empirical analyses, the Court observed that judges hav) Tj 355.68 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (e) Tj -390.72 -14.16 TD -0.1341 Tc 0.0141 Tw (traditionally disc) Tj 78.48 0 TD -0.028 Tc 0.028 Tw (ounted for economies of scale by awarding fees in the lower range) Tj -78.48 -14.16 TD 0.102 Tc 0 Tw (of) Tj 10.2 0 TD 0.096 Tc 0.864 Tw ( ab) Tj 15.48 0 TD -0.0099 Tc 0.8499 Tw (out 11 percent to 19 percent. \223\221Obviously, it is not ten times as difficult ) Tj 0.864 Tc 0 Tw (t) Tj 364.32 0 TD 0 Tc (o) Tj -390 -14.16 TD 0.093 Tc (prepare,) Tj 39.72 0 TD -0.0114 Tc 0.8514 Tw ( and try or settle a 10 million dollar case as it is to try a 1 million dolla) Tj 352.32 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (r) Tj -392.04 -14.16 TD -0.1454 Tc 0.0054 Tw (case.\222\224 Id. at *26-27 \(quoting ) Tj 142.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1204 Tc 0 Tw (In re Union Carbide Corp. Consumer Prod) Tj 203.64 0 TD -0.0107 Tc 0.0107 Tw (. Bus. Sec.) Tj -346.44 -14.16 TD 0.02 Tc 0 Tw (Litig.) Tj 25.8 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0046 Tc 0.0046 Tw (, 724 F. Supp. 160, 166 \(S.D.N.Y. 1989\)\).) Tj -61.8 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (39.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.004 Tc 0.004 Tw (See id. at *30.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (40.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0255 Tc -0.0045 Tw (Id. at *21 \(quoting ) Tj 91.92 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.002 Tc -0.002 Tw (Union Carbide) Tj 72.36 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0047 Tc 0.0047 Tw (, 724 F. Supp. at 163\).) Tj -200.28 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (41.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.024 Tc 0.024 Tw (See, e.g., ) Tj 46.44 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.01 Tc 0 Tw (Kaplan) Tj 35.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc ( v. ) Tj 15 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.003 Tc (Rand) Tj 25.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0046 Tc 0.0046 Tw (, 192 F.3d 60, 72 \(2d Cir. 1999\).) Tj -158.16 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (42.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0193 Tc 0.0193 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *32.) Tj -91.92 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (43.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0056 Tc 0.0056 Tw (See id. at *32-33.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (44.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0056 Tc 0.0056 Tw (See id. at *34-35.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (45.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.136 Tc 0.016 Tw (See ) Tj 19.8 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1252 Tc 0.0052 Tw (Central Bank of Denver, N.A) Tj 135.96 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.12 Tc 0 Tw (. v. ) Tj 17.4 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.1235 Tc 0.0035 Tw (First Interstate Bank of Den) Tj 131.88 0 TD -0.0075 Tc 0.0075 Tw (ver, N.A.) Tj 42.6 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.003 Tc -0.003 Tw (, 511 U.S.) Tj -347.64 -14.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (164) Tj 18 0 TD ( ) Tj 5.4 0 TD -0.012 Tc 2.292 Tw (\(1994\) \(abolishing aiding and abetting liability in Section 10\(b\) securitie) Tj 367.92 0 TD 0.012 Tc 0 Tw (s) Tj ET endstream endobj 44 0 obj 7089 endobj 45 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 36 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F2 14 0 R /F3 18 0 R >> /ProcSet 2 0 R >> /Contents 46 0 R >> endobj 46 0 obj << /Length 47 0 R >> stream BT 93.6 761.04 TD 0 0 0 rg /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0178 Tc 0 Tw (P) Tj 5.64 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0148 Tc (AUL) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0509 Tc (EISS) Tj 16.08 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0433 Tc 0 Tw (R) Tj 6.6 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0922 Tc (IFKIND) Tj 26.28 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.03 Tc (,) Tj 2.52 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf -0.0422 Tc 0 Tw (W) Tj 9.48 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0.0009 Tc 0.0591 Tw (HARTON ) Tj 35.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0511 Tc 0 Tw (&) Tj 7.68 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( ) Tj 2.04 0 TD /F2 9.96 Tf 0.0089 Tc 0 Tw (G) Tj 7.2 0 TD /F2 7.92 Tf -0.0287 Tc (ARRISON) Tj 264.84 -1.92 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc (10) Tj -420 -710.16 TD /F2 10.92 Tf -0.0368 Tc (www.paulweiss.com) Tj 36 660.48 TD /F2 12 Tf 0.1176 Tc (litigation) Tj 44.52 0 TD -0.006 Tc (\);) Tj 7.32 0 TD -0.0137 Tc 0.0937 Tw ( see also ) Tj 43.92 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc 0 Tw (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0159 Tc 0.1359 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *36-37 \(litigatio) Tj 238.32 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (n) Tj -390 -14.16 TD (risk) Tj 18 0 TD -0.0172 Tc 0.3172 Tw ( measured as of time case commenced\) \(citing ) Tj 227.52 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0067 Tc 0 Tw (DiFilippo) Tj 47.4 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.18 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15.72 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0051 Tc 0 Tw (Morizio) Tj 38.04 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0103 Tc 0.3703 Tw (, 759 F.2) Tj 43.32 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (d) Tj -390 -14.16 TD -0.004 Tc 0.004 Tw (231, 234 \(2d Cir. 1985\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (46.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.104 Tc (See) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 4.32 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.1149 Tc (Goldber) Tj 40.8 0 TD -0.012 Tc (ger) Tj 15.96 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0143 Tc 1.2143 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *35. Moreover, not all risk ) Tj 1.224 Tc 0 Tw (i) Tj 312.6 0 TD 0.012 Tc (s) Tj -391.32 -14.16 TD 0.0909 Tc (created) Tj 35.28 0 TD 1.032 Tc 0.048 Tw ( e) Tj 9.48 0 TD -0.0163 Tc 0.9763 Tw (qual. For example, the Second Circuit had previously employed publi) Tj 345.96 0 TD -0.048 Tc 0 Tw (c) Tj -390.72 -14.16 TD 0.12 Tc (policy) Tj 30.36 0 TD 0.111 Tc 0.729 Tw ( cons) Tj 26.28 0 TD -0.0316 Tc 0.7516 Tw (iderations to deny any contingency allowance in a case that was risk) Tj 333.72 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (y) Tj -390.36 -14.16 TD -0.106 Tc (simply) Tj 31.68 0 TD -0.1399 Tc -0.3401 Tw ( because of its \223highly questionable merit.\224 ) Tj 204.48 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.138 Tc -0.162 Tw (In re ) Tj 24.48 0 TD -0.1167 Tc -0.2433 Tw (\223Agent Orange\224 Prod. Liab) Tj 132.36 0 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (.) Tj -393 -14.16 TD 0.02 Tc (Litig.) Tj 25.8 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.005 Tc 0.005 Tw (, 818 F.2d 226, 235-36 \(2d Cir. 1987\).) Tj -61.8 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (47.) Tj 36 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0072 Tc (Goldberger) Tj 55.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0193 Tc 0.0193 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *38.) Tj -91.92 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (48.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.004 Tc 0.004 Tw (See id.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (49.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.016 Tc (See) Tj 17.28 0 TD -0.0058 Tc 0.1166 Tw ( id. at *38-39. The Court was hesitant to accept plaintiffs\222 expert ) Tj 317.52 0 TD -0.0109 Tc 0.0109 Tw (report on the) Tj -334.8 -14.16 TD -0 Tc 0 Tw (amount) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0145 Tc 0.1236 Tw ( of \223provable\224 damages, both because the expert report had not ) Tj 306.48 0 TD -0.0132 Tc 0.0132 Tw (been tested) Tj -342.48 -14.16 TD -0.1351 Tc 0.0151 Tw (through the adversarial process, and because valuation of damages in securities) Tj 369.72 0 TD -0.0096 Tc 0.0096 Tw ( class) Tj -369.72 -14.16 TD -0.014 Tc 0.014 Tw (actions is inherently susceptible to challenge. See id. at *39. ) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (50.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.092 Tc (Id.) Tj 12.72 0 TD -0.0102 Tc 0.0702 Tw ( at *39 \(quoting ) Tj 79.68 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0055 Tc 0.1145 Tw (City of Detroit) Tj 70.32 0 TD /F2 12 Tf 0 Tc 0.06 Tw ( v. ) Tj 15.24 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.0046 Tc 0.1154 Tw (Grinnell Corp.) Tj 71.52 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0042 Tc 0.1002 Tw (, 560 F.2d 1093, 1099 ) Tj 109.2 0 TD -0.0017 Tc 0.0017 Tw (\(2d Cir.) Tj -358.68 -14.16 TD -0.0103 Tc 0 Tw (1977\)\).) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc (51.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0056 Tc 0.0056 Tw (See id. at *39-40.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (52.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.104 Tc (See) Tj 17.64 0 TD 0 Tc ( ) Tj 3.96 0 TD /F3 12 Tf 0.12 Tc (Gold) Tj 24.48 0 TD -0.012 Tc (berger) Tj 31.92 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0198 Tc 0.8598 Tw (, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152 at *41 \(citing) Tj 0 Tc -0.12 Tw ( ) Tj 221.88 0 TD /F3 12 Tf -0.0016 Tc 0.8416 Tw (Cities At A Glance) Tj 92.16 0 TD -0.036 Tc 0 Tw (:) Tj -392.04 -14.16 TD 0.0039 Tc -0.0039 Tw (High and Low Hourly Billing Rates) Tj 171.12 0 TD /F2 12 Tf -0.0197 Tc 0.0197 Tw (, Nat'l L.J. \(Dec. 21, 1998\)\).) Tj -207.12 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (53.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.0333 Tc 0.0333 Tw (Id. at *42.) Tj -36 -26.16 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (54.) Tj 36 0 TD -0.092 Tc (Id.) Tj ET endstream endobj 47 0 obj 5187 endobj 48 0 obj << /Kids [ 5 0 R 36 0 R ] /Count 11 /Type /Pages /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] >> endobj 49 0 obj [ /CalGray << /WhitePoint [ 0.96429 1 0.8251 ] /Gamma 1.89999 >> ] endobj 50 0 obj [ /CalRGB << /WhitePoint [ 0.96429 1 0.8251 ] /Gamma [ 1.89999 1.89999 1.89999 ] /Matrix [ 0.511 0.2903 0.0273 0.3264 0.6499 0.1279 0.1268 0.0598 0.66991 ] >> ] endobj 51 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /XObject << /im1 58 0 R >> /Font << /F1 18 0 R /F0 14 0 R >> /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ] >> /Contents 68 0 R /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 >> endobj 58 0 obj << /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Name /im1 /Filter /FlateDecode /Width 2086 /Height 1832 /BitsPerComponent 8 /ColorSpace [ /Indexed /DeviceRGB 255 60 0 R ] /Length 59 0 R >> stream Hv6ŌX,=@[{wZM}$;wmԇ-̴8NP NP NP NP NP NP NP tҜfx3T*T*T*T*T*T*T*ֱŔ߫Y5yP *T‚J4(M%,JS *T‚J4(`%yaTJS *T‚J4(M%,JS *T‚J4(e-ܻfV yU*aA%PJXP T@i*aA%PJXP T/M,SsrUS 'JQ 'JQ 'JQ 'JQ 'JQ 'JQ 'J9X ṙUBߩNP NP NP NP NP NP NP iv.O">NMG%)nA% S v*60N%۩Tp;Jn`S TtbJ2c=5Z 4HQ>X !f6g~VjTJ1`L%S *TJ1`L%X9]Wz\GI%𦩄JM% Ul*a`S uJTp]%*b~N~{V {u_{k/Ih%pJT M%JT M%JT M%JT,Y̻$fV Q 4o"*auϳi*A%JP 0Tc*A%JP 0T:b7{P /J෤T,S *TJe*A%2`JP GSm>fkR Y?5uNy&kkuuJVugm*.*aJJXE*.*aJJXI]?%?4ul`P~M7ބJC%0J`*a T*=T3P {fP 22'KY&1^S6PO_ߗmUoC%JC%0J`*a T*=T3P {fȌCfA+]J x_[wϣ0pJ`h*T*TCS P ek \KS[]ܧ&:/JxyjyکVD!/ߟJT n@%0p*!P A%܀J`*TC6VBdԹ(2orJ2TcQ ܅J8B%02pJ`d*T*#T#S GFP Wk'&OdyW+}7YP gP H%A%0"pTT#R gP H%A%0"pVǦf@?9o+_tOtʥ}O T* TSQ 6P LE%lJ@%0J`*kK{Go>f]`fŝ+mNz^-}2R+TkT3S Q L%F%03TkT3S Q Z%|k>70JБڝm*.V3_Yci-Նjm2Q c**aL%@%10`T T˜JyO&d-|5&•Tܸ~ qu Tafm6U;7TLS *TJi*A%4`JP 5D9sur t6cZP*aL%@%10`T T˜JJS 0Uf|={ :涕S{=ЪPJ`wT˜JJS 0P c**aL%@%10yj| e.ך!seNc!O#>T'no~N%J9*aTS N%J9*aT 2*9wؚJHyJkUC峩Z_TB%TLS *TJi*A%4ؽ9cd>˜"2^ƜAZ6:Pv~|Z#u|Z\=J+*a@WT *T]Q +VP tE%۲ߐp[yx_ˁUǻ\6νpW4RyuCXI%J઩3R \5pF*H%pTJ8#US gjuX~ uՁVcޯuY%]l^_!na%T\]2**]S 'P J8J`T TN5p@-._˱]AnZ)/_X%uoFC:6/Z**.#J8J **.#إ:9yP`NAWߵ`Gc 6~~uJHm2*a*]R P J؀J`TT6%. vin6Pk@{ 1B`k;OVBz8~j-t[J؀J`TT6%. vI%l@%K*a*][X `9 /~EݲοЊ=&J7ZP/s8JXA%J+*a@WT *T]Q +VP tN~~BZulDzl;Q7y8>.;J+*a@WT *T]Q +VP tE%Jk\9k ԁv[-e|ѧ2V/!(P ⯐ZQ| p@TT]P GP tA%A%p@TT]P GP tLPj@|9,ťyxq_O'~9%tJ+*a@WT *T]Q +VP tE%ؕ0oN̂x=\η\Yj%ԿO3ݵ?Iu[yY y:q\|vhm$ hI fuȼE ˑ1rwU>\/QcD%>T* TCS 6P M%lJ@%04J`jY|m1eq}»Jδj#wzP oP LM%A%05TTSS oP LM%A%05wqrSouJ5|2`=]sQS- y TCS 6P M%lJ@%04J`h*aTR HmQ}-zEC^[t9udJr?H I%1T *)TSR +VP LI%JXA%0%J` uӤ5m׊&uiw~d 5 |o~*P *TJe*A%2`JP L%X').z.knu->ujpikbK%XT,S *TJe*A%2l&\fg}mzv莬:Yb]uRϩC0`JP L%XT,S *TJRzi{-UТk/kW*ɯκ.j3EXs^_7SމJX@%,W P U*T}ŗuS.^<& ]~miR_ʺ TAn~HOMU^oר^oר^oר^oר^oר^oר^oר.{. ssߔvsuQq]щ{S0kMjߛUF%lJB%02J`d*a T*-T#S [FV7GoJ8#EQ g(*TE%Jࢨ3R \pF*H%pQz;UTATחA^{<S3Mc۽!%zu-C~ H%pQT.J8#EQ g(*TE%Jࢨ3R ́dza5@c>H^zڝUBc˧Hre Rn|>>_Nح8# AH0^*`.Uv!JJ`(*a *JJ`(JZ?[pM}\w]zUPv:P:L%л ~   E֡JJ`H*a*!JJ`HŷWY\u:?|nu^%(ܯU~ޫM5JT@%p*%;P ,A%܁J` *TK;UmԈȏe!=4ܯ.~Mj02@? 3S`{*aC* 6JؐJ`**aC* 6RSVEwh7u~VgeoymiYtYe&CKE5M>S=0PT@TCQ Q E% D%00PT@TCQ Q -л_g=5Y\Ytuq~~K&l}8^o5Zߚ1TTKS WP ,M%\A%4pTTKS WP ,M%\A%T@]x,JdA]}ʱsջ)Ml /̰/׶zmP P JJTT.8p! A%\@%"j%*^[8&9ɔr]SӪ&sU{ީR ,E%ܐJ`)*TKQ 7XJ!RT nH%0U>ߚVe3eS=[S罷&Jm|zǨ_L#өPDW8TTSP ;P LA%@%0TTSP ;P LuN6Qj{д"KL<52|T̥d*%zQ:0"0PT@TCQ Q E% D%00PT@TCQ Q Tj6,l&\fEŖocc۽wu]O]V424zV585ɶ{Q ;R M%H%04#TŽTCS ;R M%H%0^/McPHYdUZ|iz9ShVuby?kes vJ؁J` *a*)vJ؁J` ?IroxO|8|ݍ>_<۾N7s?}zeL۪JP JP JP Jllk?lZTeJH|Ͼ6/oWzI2ħ"7"S wXJT@%p*%;P ,A%܁J` e3Zl?Ⱦ.Z"NQi!)/.?ZK%SNWǸvӈ:oSmwqs}ik}i:IL>D@%p*%3P ,A%J` * TKP gXJ8J!^z6K,) [ɀջۦ]^=4ua}Z}W>N\E<ё.o!T†TSS R LM%lH%05!T†TSS R ̩)rIda]7uamdzBFzW|Ǧ3ê =[;i0UTKR P ,I% XJ@%$0J`I*a:#up:ZUj{_Nw8=k m/uz\.R6fVJ@%$0J`I*aT*%TKR P LV~kd|]XGW'WKaJ;jW =Z%\ 0TTDTSQ Q LE%LD%00TTDTSQ Q Lep%}smߊ,,,گfS8z{a {3<.{-p؞JؐJ`j*aC* 6JؐJ`j*aC* v%z{.,b*Z˻+X9~[Ooyl\uuhyZ0@Ȁ`TT6. vA%l@% *a*]P P L˯z:):~*"S;_L+`MMTkX|yo.ҫ~ 6. vA%l@% *a*]P P J؀J`UBܿj<[`yO]Pj3p2:\gs`?E&JJ`**a"*&JJ`jPu"J%d1*Ydߛi&]T/c~NZP}M:d>0J`I*aT*%TKR P ,I% XJVA[dSQ]dߊ\gqe!:r*!Χ|xC0{uv {R ,E% XJH%0J`)*a RT@*%u<5Pu,,Z"ŇZ 9*szkL&m(St|yz A%pIRߛƩ~oMo_zߕOy)vY,eI:eP \*K>B%pITG.J%Q $*vhIj# h5`w ļ{!QzUjιZ=-UM(P s$y]dAݤ_227 d@| 6OnHC%gr[-LTki~6*%J*{^JkJx*}'*%J*{^JkNygLwjLѝCw Zz[[nI|-{E4qnO)G%l&6P n Q  7 T„~T*aM`?*a0JpS~ z^ՙ<݄ǀMZ~jP:2-fݘוSg g|2dެb'-YGji'Y|JP *e*A%XTJ`JP *e*A%XWseb R} z}3~-3AuiLf6eh eKTI%p 0@R C%?TP $1TI%p 0@R C%?T6cAW {d~pI YZ rP(?&]tS 78%p*SR 78%p*SR 78%p*)Z0eTT?!fJ>ǹRd9:dѺ Kջ]->J8J`j*@*J8J`j*@*c1 o.Ѝ2|UDdBTa/mu1S$[%Wlb`bZ&K5JXx˺+1Tm_]nJ%p tۗuW*c۾R C%,O-"mgO"fgWW*j%9niJXZmEyڜW lKHۆt9ب*ai is^%Q3/U"]o.J`f^E6\yFͼT KtmH7O*yzpn6U׵*uP'MH=@"#Po8OCKdQ+]|Sl?w9L%J*TP '8J8!T N@%pp*(^&N׹&2j5:'TZܜKwcꔯ'Y]^9'+w$} }S S C%O%p 0?1TTP S C%O%p 0?mݜ2NWyDLZ [I_ |=?yMҹYK3eqKjuY=D{79tEYQ Q A%G%00T|TsP Q A%G%00\>So:Y2rgbe\V"su*vyϩ9Y:5ͺ:ghJ͚J8mP ܖJ8mP ܖJ8mP ܖJ8u]}7kخ߇:"g~)2ĩU0$z쮫 [uofojUꢯ<^J8J`N*x*9J8J6&N\ǐ U@=UB&OTk9mn3h6Ɖ|ÐM8/,nkՐnͩTJ+JP |R *TS*A%JxJ%R OW*)~wP'N; Ȥz7Yz<|'soRF*J-4kq's]驄P*}P*}P*}P*}P*}P*}P*}UBVB&__dRd)R V@~=e6uvz͹<TJ`JP *e*A%XTJ`JP *e*A%W,#' QU ې0? U 9MAm&/|TJ0T8L%a*A%S *A%pJP *_ gd|5CEc*!kϝ^]te˿`JP *TJP TJ0T8L%a*A%1{.ޞWaiܷwP}x]n|bfAOu tY~嵟*#S 8*uLT~&J`]*a?G%.XJQ K%gnǯ9C>f垇t\&&ǂ:g^D롖>ְw?[=ʧG%*G%*G%*G%Փ冿L8D±9\WӫwA8=[ܽ<[׻ҋ5zL.R \J.uR \J.uR \J.uR ߽wq^韇?LLL٤q5rOl݉{JHjd{?^o܇"nG%TJx(*ᄇTCQ '<$J8!PT I%NxH*A%<pCR *`ޡaa$xߓOi3&ͱu/}<7C/kkz*Y.?Tס?Tס?Tס?Tס?Tס?Tס?Tùp/s됑SOڞ2L|q(9駮 )^UKyzM'_WDaLEʬY~ +<@p:fS wU8;ηS|*νvvܛO%߹WT\8N{;rJ؝ ۩sov>p^US s|;uΧܫq*`w.oνT{U9N%pyؓeO=ǿJO2is'ƭ*Y|Nc'ڤ _JxO*aTJ *A%܅JB%lJP w6@%P T] P *x4ǾVz).3ΫJdbtLtD&P 1i,>̟R YۯwD'i{aLׯzgiR͐2} dj{٢,,uBWA>ؗ}?CP *L*`TJ8J=ΤvO%3S *L*`TJ8J=ΤvJ'VЧȫ>~gDd>j6'1Ue=>9^ٸ(?m{gfbT™Tp&{*A%I%JP gR T™Tp&{*A%I%α5pj=XCM=gc,S&>*a.ː5l 말\F2{mvT‘߫T‘߫T‘߫T‘߫T‘߫T‘߫T‘߫^}(k3~Si?,Г&90>13 e>fek/SjaZ@֮2Jv]rvTBoW ݺ]n0:snL9<v~+ Mɤ?ɢ"pTB8S *!W TJUg*A%*3}s41PGy5[4ĸ׽Z9qge5$M;,j.zk޹ޮ5d ڿ]U]|-^JP *A%\TJP Te*A%pJP *A%\TJP T?u6Q^8+!^gLM?WRW,'CըzderkG%}{*}u_sUsvNuJ8S ;\KץN*L%p-^J83õx]*TuJ8S ;\KץN*L%p-^J83õhMuf5ud(:,MMg/'ada^J詇{Z_FY~,\^e?mzw{5ؖJP E%\˭2PT…!JP E%\˭2PT…!JP E%\˭2PT…!JP E%\˭2m͎,j ^e9sV;7F&6z[ޫ*Ū|<.ð208k"Ďͮ=ގاM`L%F%ߦ 0TBoS *Q iШ۴TJhTmc*A%4*`6m1/9ZZGoMV@ol*{g2܇wS~4cǖ>޳ܫ;3M2Cԍ:z?3;'%Y 9*b?^W׷ǤC\zصH5`6?JY6TJQ *FTJG%Q *8nD%pTJQ *FTJG%Q *ؽP7E4U0fTJ1P *TJC%S *8 nL%0TJ1P *TJC%S *8ީ՛X^-<먯3r~Cok_ZCT3?me C\k[S{)~ 2 Khbmy=ߟzk Y*A%܈JP p#*A%TJP 7Tp8*A%܈JP p#*A%TS+}3:~[G|:nSFGH>ޛG6+!o'^k>J5{kXv1VX_Slu|.`*A%\J8TJ2pR Qpe*R *TI%GT•JJ%+S 'JP WN*\|謮 Ϸ3 g֑^5%-u]~ϗfr zuZˇZ[%r'fTOM]z?^o4YJP W6ڹ1:kWR *F;wT3FgJ*A%\hNޞJx]I%+S +pe;y{*v%ls'oO%c ?'D*"cS53kRoM_3nvu.->dpFd8*,izw+]K +`*A%,4: /٣zt\&fTB[sJ =GGJP ne*` +`*A%,4: /٣zt\&f:519?6yўG}ݽjhϐG|BITwCU۲tko3;-C4H2Ŗֲ5kQ ,z*`Q ,z*`Q ,z*`Q ,z*`Q ,z*`Q ,z*`Q ,z*8av&Fi5Gv 94:{{_Quw^z{k~r4j{;0!kzuw7Z{{I@%%px*A%,\CJKTJX&0sp M*a.S *aT]T54 O%kh

%]9tϭGK{jҭ6aj},K(>r["Tդ[mզXP|v4{=E,IM,i{n=XSUn93Wc XBٕMz&jsf6+ٛ(b pOUM \m%` gWN7sQ?}v+ :}0W?xU- ols[m٩Zt7JkIRzյgHɔJ5KQ].)5JU덫,` Xs,` Xs,` Xs,` Xs,` Xs,` Xs,` XT%QUh*VR O4 Zb^S\|} >u- k{, I0=e fQ杔ts)}ڬ?E"H}S*3}Vѹ2Sn]c K,K5p,m]c K,K5p,m]c K,K5p,m]c KK?~\9&7US s׼{ xU|*z[R-AV5Yף1UmK9z*8ntB6v^,>~YR-4@ GRsk,KPN` ϧ @샟+]c XrKx>UpR`\KX󩂃%:JXO,?W|` >5%('SK uϕ,A9%<*8X_'+R[>~?{Q=]{TWߤ`WUZY^u/ us64#W2PNe{T0y8?J`WpLQ:G oDX%,"M%LE)pLa X64 0s1F%` X/4XTΑB%` nH` SQ:G oDX%,"M%LE)pLa X64 0s1F%` X/4XTΑB$\ɫQZSxOְV,A~h vjp.sS\%ʍ-9]D%UfVh*r7R.k߂%` X` X%,a,` XXpI,K,K$X%l%\,K6K.V o!ѫSZָn8_j騝8X}^{ML5R+kyFwSN-O#2mDyJ lNكCt4ˈ2DRR賲a XJ z5n!Kx-6ཱིa XJ z5n!Kx-6ཱིa XJ z5n!Kx-6ཱིa XJ z5n!Kx-6ཱིa XJ z5n!Kx-6ཱིa XJ z5n!Kx-6ཱིa XJ z5n!Kx-6 ȪM }*ڸ7o"\6|9./ku^cU;-VӰ6;Q{a_N{J3W]Hy榃|٢}[[tU -)[[tU -)[[tU -)[[tU -)[[tU -)[[tU -)[[tU -)_nϥeyq6[[ƹ_qei5_j*myu_F|Z*i}.sN5_B I.ߺ/ղR87J-c%` Xվ_a +%` VF%t{?쨑P4nڞxGVRՆTJ`k+yZ\TJP ~Aw:\C JP *aٯ=TBkhsQ *A%l0ݕJOwL]C6ss5)~fyw>ܭl1g=\ y;ˍTJT;R *^JP H%x)*A%#२TJT;R *^JP H%x)ռ4:k'gߋ/s$?xz_T*ٱ#,O)˼?C'6>1Hq#> qw]biR)TKͧT\JP ,5JP p *A%|J*A%%R)TKͧT\JP ,5JP p b;bY*^U]l̡_WqRX갼}Mru51UpDIFį ]upP */E%vTؑJP RTJ`G*A%KQ */E%vTؑJP RVAB1lu>.}=Wסgɪyϧ_eLFX.Xc 28ⰏI۱)>5w.ȅQ &tݟKj1aջUJSR &tݟKj1aջUJSR &tݟKj1aջUJSR &tݟKj1aջUJSR &tݟKj1aջUJSR &tݟKj1aջUJSR &tݟKj1aջUJSZ ?×a4=Z7:ke)Yy73{U 3c>}lDz{9qswk [ \ݼlepaTšw=lJXsv󲕕w=TPS k.n^ngUJj*aVV JP @M%|wyʻV *5n7/[Yy73{*A%U:TAG<5/lnplv^rTC\ Eir=q\qNw7-^1KgT22C%ev Fn>.oP pYtF%.oP pYtF%>eH{1zppTT9JP R w*A%K%9Cl]]绍Wzhgfz`PQ *8=+uJP X;TTJNJݡTpzV3=Rw違CE%LT&~i@΁ٯNz㰏IP?qt|؇sw+ ?%rzij" CD%4&~Q *8,bzɻ:DTJN9.hh" CD%4&~Q *8,bzɻ:DTJNG%HѻyuCh,ƲKuǹ JlU/uer=}V uQ *A%oO%JXP *x{*DT‚JP S 'TJޞJ8TT‰㩄'r]VXavL~^:>2j@lG5TzleOqr |}_CI%<1TTS *A%J%<1TTS *A%J%<1TTS *A%J%<1T6OJX[ NPUD>﷿el쯖,Ru6ê*?3?!=xX߇y~UJ|3TJبp*ߌ6$7#A%+ jHP *`J|3TJبp*ߌ6$7#A%kV*bϫ~>|ߪ!i9N߇UC?ͼ*ȗ ߓakqx*A%nNiU%UQ-W>W 4*A%hTJH7_%ШnJQ *!|@TB*F%tUf/gk>=5<#JQ *A%vTJP oT[*aG%JQ *A%vTJP oTsSkLϓe<X<8ZVn8o40b|jY&~U-Cj*A%TJP S *A%ЧTJO%@JP *Α2ڮՍ崥GǴծꦧ}><_V+uOU|hbO͗& *xdg3@%****** c\W!H|TFg~a4>g" by&*z4.F%XاTBW S *!֫UTJ*}*A%z>bJ`_59FkP}qu:X/&5PUEbGX\q^l?JP *>T}*A%TJP S *A%ЧTJo4$y@]9{W=NU7um=%JױT}*A%TJP U(lT_g6ԙN;ӦeML,@lj|P^/mTC۫e**A%lJ8JP [mTC۫e**A%lS$SL#cq{ј.+{J$٪`44:>TC4j`=T}*A%TJP S *A%ЧTJO%@_ f4ŵ0UUW[j6#b-c_MegyIiu>Z $|TV@R *aI%lU $|TV@R *aI%lU $|TV@R *aI%lU $|TVj޸F|c}Y֨ps?ug[T±,pkTJ8ֹEnJP :vh5n{iCMGKglI9o!42zE/0zE/0_o~lɫK{n]˟y^T–Jhu}FTB0*ZD]Q-"J%lQ`T*aK%>R [*ENjүknݏ'upvkW|jD*JP OjD*JP OjD*JP Oj$g&s.[_ⵟs\nJJ` **)nJJ` **)mAjLa_-׏f=9B%اTS *TJ}*A%>Xiᬕc!]R =sL9TBSc*|1s>TJ9c*pL%18ֺrM!kzBG%5\ Jk ^@#r8*G)z qTB\S XG endstream endobj 59 0 obj 31247 endobj 60 0 obj << /Length 61 0 R /Filter /ASCII85Decode >> stream o^qeJo^qhLp%A"Np@e4Rp@e4Rp@n=Up\4FWq"XXZq"XXZq>'j^q>'m`qYL'bqYL'd r;?Kjr;?KjrVc]nrVc`prr2orrr2oss8W-!s8W-!lg*m-o()VPq>^KpbF4mLR[W'$ RcU!,m[BU=R[X8FRfB.Xs/`=%[']kH^&Q*ls3K$kf@U&\i;`'+bHdSd\!l-bRcV;Q m_kRgaI<.RRfCd1s4+4Ng9gn:^&R-4s6%`.ldu1+i;`H6bKH@(e=,4LRcWY"md?P< pR;-^RfED_s8T2#s0Vh+^&S,Ps8UFFs4@;Ni;`iAZHJ]Ge=+#*R_RsQ`9s)8pR9A, RaM/1ec2`)s0UY_^#T.4kPrlos4?c?i:R'6R`h.ge=)i^R[W?,RdQW5pR7QNR\TnX XT,B/s0TK>]uL)lci;>Cs4?3/i9C:+R`i"*e@1n&]:.irRdS+_pW/g'c(kfk5W-Zs2OF* cgLhbnc.P>s69:XR]FW#Y1/oFh3t\3R^VXQ\bDQ*s.dF1XN1@Jc2YK*s2N^kce\WQ j8\'$s68tOR[VEgRaddph3seoR[WZ5ReN8>s.c@hXK;H/[/[hQs2N(Ycd2XCfDjde s68eJZC8tGRaess8U+=s3L`FfDkm/s8V?`bF5`d R^_+A]B,Krm[D)gR`PMtc2XQds/acN[+bPnhZ(UUs3Km.fB`IpnGhbFY,\/'YbT%B V9$3Gd(cU5_5lM4X6I[,ld3*.e%P;(`:Vm.p>OHrkh,h"i;`E5~> endstream endobj 61 0 obj 990 endobj 68 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 69 0 R >> stream HVmo6ikH/,(~(Ҵ Qlw-Q2w{xc4SSΛ d(ѺuYϫݐ"s-&eWB'cNM4zU}Ql*Ls'iv0T݉ ɍ)0Ϫ'*cjW}FKve=|u2-ԱDm3J]QMsF{^=o//FȤgpgɈԘMtC Ԩ,VӡYv}ߩb Ъ6h`̬ ~AƴھeJ2tD.M]B\:ȥ[ ZsBWMT;{!C7|1'pdY#Qroqzأcʜ[{D֫rѶBxDO7['rɰm8ls~*7=kpXk[5ٿ jn" endstream endobj 69 0 obj 960 endobj xref 0 70 0000000052 65535 f 0000000016 00000 n 0000000335 00000 n 0000000375 00000 n 0000000470 00000 n 0000000665 00000 n 0000000787 00000 n 0000006689 00000 n 0000006710 00000 n 0000006807 00000 n 0000006826 00000 n 0000007942 00000 n 0000008230 00000 n 0000009348 00000 n 0000009644 00000 n 0000010750 00000 n 0000011028 00000 n 0000020560 00000 n 0000020582 00000 n 0000021693 00000 n 0000021979 00000 n 0000022116 00000 n 0000031495 00000 n 0000031517 00000 n 0000031665 00000 n 0000041871 00000 n 0000041894 00000 n 0000042042 00000 n 0000051090 00000 n 0000051112 00000 n 0000051249 00000 n 0000058839 00000 n 0000058861 00000 n 0000058998 00000 n 0000065919 00000 n 0000065941 00000 n 0000066090 00000 n 0000066193 00000 n 0000072762 00000 n 0000072784 00000 n 0000072922 00000 n 0000083263 00000 n 0000083286 00000 n 0000083424 00000 n 0000090569 00000 n 0000090591 00000 n 0000090729 00000 n 0000095972 00000 n 0000095994 00000 n 0000096094 00000 n 0000096179 00000 n 0000096360 00000 n 0000000053 00001 f 0000000054 00001 f 0000000055 00001 f 0000000056 00001 f 0000000057 00001 f 0000000062 00001 f 0000096613 00000 n 0000128074 00000 n 0000128097 00000 n 0000129167 00000 n 0000000063 00001 f 0000000064 00001 f 0000000065 00001 f 0000000066 00001 f 0000000067 00001 f 0000000000 00001 f 0000129188 00000 n 0000130226 00000 n trailer << /Size 70 /Info 1 0 R /Root 3 0 R /ID[<279149201909e69a5f33a4b73770df1f><7b89dac4600c0270db633397d5f479d3>] >> startxref 130247 %%EOF 1 0 obj << /Creator /CreationDate (D:20001030143111) /Title /Producer (Acrobat PDFWriter 4.0 for Windows) /ModDate (D:20001030143414-05'00') >> endobj 51 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /XObject << /im1 58 0 R >> /Font << /F1 18 0 R /F0 14 0 R >> /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ] >> /Contents 62 1 R /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 >> endobj 52 1 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 1 R >> stream HVn7yj9>uXty'Pè!W%W*y$Ι3g8R _zkyۗo/BiƂʂ#)T|9.:^2 ;dl)8V>dd*X \\f/oE)AK{s2`}w/p%Җ>6"(t!3ś젆9v< fqhaͿOMDoo?.2f"C HiQ x A\Sf W+V4{!u o׫4EI&`Q:3FhS JQ2QVf~׻"1[tMݫ&S!mͪQdI'NDXօ>IJNl8 NnLi<ҞjW}Ʀ4 f'z9ôyәԱDI`zC%g_T*hOՆ~OۋKi GzRd383ʄ)1W:R +깩Qh OfwC;05WMgdLK-j4CG^T%OUZ 9j89s7Cpˤ7&Q>S&ɰM6Lڣ a܈hTB*g,F "3^Oc*NH+ՁT9-ܲh85e5F'3[ -yBy?lo}=e~lߥItB+yJe4S F=z}݋b-*L7m$JSb*QJ}̠3'D+|_`TinY6~ԋ59 n~(m%ϫ _톚؏nM0rfU-H_(d? 7KlIbKU% L7VL <!o 0ݖl endstream endobj 53 1 obj 957 endobj 54 1 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 55 1 R >> stream HVmo8 `UEQn^e8 >z!ˆ)Ç(iUwyO_LJo=YE(W)!BKΗʾ#Y/% *8I#)=+5X]%#0WmCwyZi} }g#dTrD >fo>@[XA s톭-5šWM@oo.2d%@0*7Ix#A1`3++XJ\_W3Iq@GF1'&w } 7y{MmP8wcIؒ,W} 19I6ۮU)Uu'اv0Q#;Squ}nOUO.z,*f '>pʴ s|RSg]/OqE5쉲z={9ғ"ɞ!'#Rc 6u9"V,:hMl%<eߩ*25WM;.HJk)=Z4Aj,CvY%e|119ꛎ!eb^SQ >QE|M7Lܣa[1Np^c}QN*b."GwnWSS򝘶Ç#u P’/ >}b~4(!xDоg<]޲?q]%dEqO󞒬;R=^ 8T0޴D ^OTĢ[ELAgN& Sw{ _n4M/_)r`Ld{7|Kn(zAyєL&\oUZ!~<'-hvI{d6|9?FUћ58Q5yhS"n endstream endobj 55 1 obj 960 endobj 56 1 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 57 1 R >> stream HVn8<4 ÛXٸ+5btE`bRDʺylΙ3g8J _zwyO_LJo=iA cYpJ Tpx(aT)x\oJ:K8c]2r$ލ)EdѽKn"8: mnVb+D}j؞h˺ЧvAy%R%7G6v'74<ܞ(-] i&eUlN6riǽOg]/Oԏ8rDYm={Hp'E&==C&H)I(JXwPMBl%<eߩԢK8|f^5h? 9"#vhY HeK蓟KcpLo:4IzM}&a*mG’/6?Np#^~QN.F "GwnWsU򝘷Ç#Hu #'%/^#}F(h`p{>^-z-}&U M:(niS6Gh ={7"8T0ݴLtȧ[.ΜMƑK;Ȋ=MNH3~򶪗)r`d{7|K5fPx=:9;wɰ풶8ɬJA58Q,Kq>22mCdnA endstream endobj 57 1 obj 962 endobj 62 1 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 63 1 R >> stream HVmo6 *,Lw5/7YpazC+Ç(k:y(P\7O_~zxx y EJ8>_K^rG\rRMɊ簿8-A5 V*pƓ*=<>ׇgKSQi:%#07mcw} WZi}cg#{G(ЩGLgy+}.}`jXl7l?0k@ 1n"{YtT1-)FjҪҀs$e@abܣ@PWh`J\nsIqM@'F]1gt } ^4E{mXyQi n7Yt%r"8$ miboTeͰ=>//O. FJNl8 NnLy=1VU36\ʶ5-,81)Ž{/I%jY6o*iqE5퉲zx9ғ"ɞ!'#Rc ms %:hFeyͪTN[Vu GgfM೦g$5-KV 5r7 %e|519雎! eR^S(T$#l3K&ф-ܪX$eߔXȑC՜T|'DdDT|⸏hL)[ -#fs.Y4^YyOI֝(ɞZyty_vo 8T0ݴL ^OR"ˠ3'D)L{Ȋ=MNH7~/9o0f67g_5gfvtsvyGsJ~e2f׬gˮҗGdˍb)_e2l=N2َQ58S,>GFo 0[Ln% endstream endobj 63 1 obj 959 endobj xref 0 2 0000000064 65535 f 0000131804 00000 n 51 7 0000132123 00000 n 0000132376 00001 n 0000133411 00001 n 0000133432 00001 n 0000134470 00001 n 0000134491 00001 n 0000135531 00001 n 62 2 0000135552 00001 n 0000136589 00001 n trailer << /Size 70 /Info 1 0 R /Root 3 0 R /Prev 130247 /ID[<279149201909e69a5f33a4b73770df1f>] >> startxref 136610 %%EOF 1 0 obj << /Creator /CreationDate (D:20001030143111) /Title /Producer (Acrobat PDFWriter 4.0 for Windows) /ModDate (D:20001030143538-05'00') >> endobj 4 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 5 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 18 0 R /F0 14 0 R /F12 10 0 R /F4 12 0 R >> /XObject << /im1 6 0 R >> /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC ] >> /Contents 70 0 R >> endobj 64 1 obj << /Length 65 1 R >> stream q 108.12 0 0 -26.16 87.1753 774 cm /im1 Do Q BT 0 0 0 rg 1 i /RelativeColorimetric ri /F12 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Tr 12 0 0 12 319.92 89.88 Tm (This article is reprinted with permission)Tj -0.00056 Tc 0.00056 Tw 3.23 -1.18 Td (from the May 24, 2000 edition of)Tj /F4 1 Tf 0.00117 Tc -0.00117 Tw -7.39 -1.18 Td (New York Law Journal)Tj /F12 1 Tf -0.00127 Tc 0.00127 Tw 9.66 0 Td (. \2512000 NLP IP Company.)Tj /F4 1 Tf 0.00087 Tc -0.00087 Tw -16.2 -1.16 Td (\(Read more American Lawyer Media news on the Web on law.com\))Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00336 Tc 0 Tw 10.92 0 0 10.92 93.6 34.8 Tm (www.paulweiss.com)Tj -0.00179 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 93.6 725.76 Tm (P)Tj 0.00186 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 99.24 725.76 Tm (AUL)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 115.2 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 117.72 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00423 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 119.76 725.76 Tm (W)Tj -0.00642 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 129.24 725.76 Tm (EISS)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 145.32 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 147.84 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00433 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 149.88 725.76 Tm (R)Tj -0.01163 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 156.48 725.76 Tm (IFKIND)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 182.76 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 185.28 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00423 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 187.32 725.76 Tm (W)Tj 0.00011 Tc 0.00746 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 196.8 725.76 Tm (HARTON )Tj 0.00513 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 231.84 725.76 Tm (&)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 239.52 725.76 Tm ( )Tj 0.00089 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 241.56 725.76 Tm (G)Tj -0.00362 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 248.76 725.76 Tm (ARRISON)Tj /F12 1 Tf -0.0009 Tc 0.0009 Tw 12 0 0 12 124.32 697.68 Tm (Second Circuit Review: Attorney\222s Fee Awards in Common Fund Cases)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.03149 Tc 0 Tw 0.44 -2.34 Td (In)Tj 0 Tc 0.79 0 Td ( )Tj -0.01175 Tc 0.00175 Tw 0.23 0 Td (the five years since Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation \ Reform Ac)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 31.7 0 Td (t)Tj -0.01042 Tc 0.00041 Tw -35.72 -1.18 Td (of 1995,)Tj -0.01068 Tc 0.00069 Tw 3.53 0 Td ( practitioners)Tj -0.00075 Tc 0.00075 Tw 5.1 0 Td ( and commentators alike have debated whether plaintiffs in common)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 132.6 660.24 Tm (1)Tj 0.00925 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 641.28 Tm (fund)Tj 0.008 Tc 0.112 Tw 1.87 0 Td ( cases)Tj -0.00128 Tc 0.11128 Tw 2.52 0 Td ( serve as true client-principals, or as \223figureheads\224 facilitating\ the \223quest fo)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 31.28 0 Td (r)Tj -0.0105 Tc -35.67 -1.18 Td (attorn)Tj -0.00499 Tc 0.00499 Tw 2.27 0 Td (ey\222s fees.\224)Tj -0.00072 Tc 0.00072 Tw 4.47 0 Td ( In this month\222s column, we discuss )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.0006 Tc 0 Tw 14.84 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 4.66 0 Td ( v. )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.00084 Tc 0.00084 Tw 1.25 0 Td (Integrated Resources)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 170.88 631.92 Tm (2)Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.00174 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 612.96 Tm (Inc.)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 1.52 0 Td (,)Tj -0.00104 Tc 0.00104 Tw 0.55 0 Td ( which marks the Second Circuit\222s entry into this debate.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 114.84 617.76 Tm (3)Tj -0.01149 Tc 12 0 0 12 129.6 584.64 Tm (In)Tj 0 Tc 0.83 0 Td ( )Tj /F1 1 Tf 0.00932 Tc 0.27 0 Td (Goldbe)Tj -0.00049 Tc 3 0 Td (rger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00104 Tc 0.01103 Tw 1.72 0 Td (, an opinion written by Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin, and joined b)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 26.71 0 Td (y)Tj 0.00966 Tc -35.53 -1.18 Td (Judges)Tj 0.01039 Tc 0.16959 Tw 2.78 0 Td ( Chest)Tj -0.00034 Tc 0.17033 Tw 2.76 0 Td (er J. Straub and Robert D. Sack, the Second Circuit held that either th)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 30.02 0 Td (e)Tj 0.00932 Tc -35.56 -1.18 Td (\223lo)Tj -0.00171 Tc 1.25 0 Td (destar\224)Tj -0.00302 Tc 0.13303 Tw 2.82 0 Td ( or \223percentage of recovery\224 methods may appropriately be used to \ calculat)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 31.49 0 Td (e)Tj 0.00999 Tc -35.56 -1.18 Td (atto)Tj -0.0065 Tc 1.54 0 Td (rney\222s)Tj -0.00067 Tc 0.01067 Tw 2.46 0 Td ( fees in common fund litigation. Under the \223lodestar\224 method, the\ district cour)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 31.72 0 Td (t)Tj 0.00899 Tc -35.72 -1.18 Td (determine)Tj 0.00099 Tc 4.08 0 Td (s)Tj -0.00169 Tc 0.1917 Tw 0.39 0 Td ( the number of hours actually and reasonably billed to the class, and th\ e)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 31.03 0 Td (n)Tj -0.00899 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (mu)Tj -0.00151 Tc 0.00151 Tw 1.26 0 Td (ltiplies that figure by an appropriate hourly rate. Once the initial co\ mputation has been)Tj -0.01053 Tc 0.00053 Tw -1.26 -1.18 Td (made, the district court may)Tj -0.00157 Tc 0.00157 Tw 10.87 0 Td (, in its discretion, increase the lodestar by applying a multiplier)Tj -0.01089 Tc 0.0009 Tw -10.87 -1.18 Td (based on \223less objective factors\224 such as the risk of the litigati\ on and the per)Tj -0.0016 Tc 0.0016 Tw 29.69 0 Td (formance of the)Tj -0.00359 Tc 0 Tw -29.69 -1.18 Td (attorneys.)Tj 0 Tc 4.18 0 Td ( )Tj -0.00203 Tc 0.01202 Tw 0.27 0 Td ( Under the \223percentage of recovery\224 method, the court sets some pe\ rcentage o)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 31.22 0 Td (f)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 140.16 476.16 Tm (4)Tj -0.00066 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 457.2 Tm (the)Tj -0.00269 Tc 0.01158 Tw 1.22 0 Td ( recovery as a fee \(often 25 percent\), based )Tj -0.00095 Tc 0.00095 Tw 17.43 0 Td (upon the same \223less objective\224 factors used)Tj -0.00029 Tc 0.00029 Tw -18.65 -1.18 Td (to determine the lodestar multiplier.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 265.8 447.84 Tm (5)Tj /F1 1 Tf 0.00922 Tc 12 0 0 12 129.6 414.72 Tm (Goldberge)Tj 0.00099 Tc 4.36 0 Td (r)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00085 Tc 0.06085 Tw 0.39 0 Td ( vests district courts in the Second Circuit with sweeping authority )Tj 0.062 Tc 0 Tw 27.4704 0 Td (t)Tj 0 Tc 0.2796 0 Td (o)Tj 0.0105 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (exercise)Tj 0.01099 Tc 0.07899 Tw 3.35 0 Td ( di)Tj -0.00177 Tc 0.08177 Tw 1.14 0 Td (scretion in awarding attorneys\222 fees from a common fund.)Tj -0.00336 Tc 0.08333 Tw 24.1 0 Td ( Accordingly, th)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 6.97 0 Td (e)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 433.08 405.36 Tm (6)Tj 0.00932 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 386.4 Tm (Second)Tj 0 Tc 3 0 Td ( )Tj -0.00006 Tc 0.07007 Tw 0.33 0 Td (Circuit ruled in)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 6.2502 0 Td ( )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.0006 Tc 0.3198 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00015 Tc 0.07014 Tw 4.66 0 Td ( that the district court did not abuse its discretion )Tj 0.06999 Tc 0 Tw 20.4702 0 Td (b)Tj 0 Tc 0.4998 0 Td (y)Tj 0.00699 Tc -35.53 -1.18 Td (aw)Tj -0.00082 Tc 1.18 0 Td (arding)Tj -0.0014 Tc 0.08141 Tw 2.54 0 Td ( only 4 percent of a $54 million settlement recovery \($2.1 million\) ba\ sed upo)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 31.78 0 Td (n)Tj 0.00922 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (counsel\222s)Tj 0.004 Tc 0.09599 Tw 3.86 0 Td ( \223l)Tj -0.00171 Tc 0.09171 Tw 1.09 0 Td (odestar\224 of hours actually and reasonably billed. The district court\ was no)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 30.77 0 Td (t)Tj 0.00899 Tc -35.72 -1.18 Td (requi)Tj -0.00232 Tc 2.1 0 Td (red)Tj -0.00145 Tc 0.16145 Tw 1.27 0 Td ( to award 25 percent of the recovery \($13.5 million\), or to apply a mu\ ltiplie)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 32.3 0 Td (r)Tj -0.00087 Tc 0.00087 Tw -35.67 -1.18 Td (enhancement to counsels\222 lodestar.)Tj /F12 1 Tf 0.00104 Tc -0.00104 Tw 2.38 TL T*(Background of the Case)Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.01059 Tc 0 Tw 3 -2.34 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.01099 Tc 0.00099 Tw 4.56 0 Td ( arose from the securiti)Tj -0.00069 Tc 0.00069 Tw 8.96 0 Td (es litigation involving Michael Milken of Drexel)Tj 0.00685 Tc 0 Tw -16.52 -1.18 Td (Burnham)Tj -0.00137 Tc 0.05136 Tw 3.78 0 Td ( Lambert Group Inc. in the 1980s. Criminal and civil enforcement procee\ ding)Tj 0.00099 Tc 0 Tw 31.83 0 Td (s)Tj 0.00827 Tc -35.61 -1.18 Td (allegin)Tj 0 Tc 2.78 0 Td (g)Tj -0.00127 Tc 0.01126 Tw 0.49 0 Td ( securities fraud against Milken and Drexel had resulted in guilty pleas\ , fines, an)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 32.23 0 Td (d)Tj -0.00966 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (restitution.)Tj -0.01247 Tc -0.00584 Tw 4.47 0 Td ( The primary defendant in )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.01059 Tc 0 Tw 10.56 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 4.56 0 Td ( )Tj -0.01251 Tc 0.00252 Tw 0.23 0 Td (was Integrated Resources Inc., a financia)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 15.9 0 Td (l)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 143.88 235.4399 Tm (7)Tj 0.00862 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 216.4799 Tm (services)Tj 0.00932 Tc 0.17065 Tw 3.29 0 Td ( com)Tj -0.0009 Tc 0.1709 Tw 2.18 0 Td (pany that had defaulted on over $1 billion in short-term debt and whic)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 30.03 0 Td (h)Tj 0.008 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (allegedl)Tj 0 Tc 3.23 0 Td (y)Tj -0.00128 Tc 0.04128 Tw 0.47 0 Td ( was aided and abetted by Milken and Drexel in a scheme to defraud inves\ tors.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 522 207.1199 Tm (8)Tj -0.01196 Tc 0.00195 Tw 12 0 0 12 93.6 188.1599 Tm (When the prices of Integrated\222s pu)Tj -0.00133 Tc 0.00133 Tw 13.46 0 Td (blicly traded securities plummeted, a group of plaintiffs\222)Tj 0.00867 Tc 0 Tw -13.46 -1.18 Td (law)Tj 0.00949 Tc 0.0105 Tw 1.47 0 Td ( fi)Tj -0.00078 Tc 0.01079 Tw 0.9 0 Td (rms immediately filed lawsuits on behalf of the putative class, alleging\ violations o)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 33.3 0 Td (f)Tj 0 Tc -35.67 -1.18 Td (\247)Tj 0.00899 Tc 0.03099 Tw 0.51 0 Td ( 10\()Tj -0.00101 Tc 0.03101 Tw 1.65 0 Td (b\) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated th\ ereunder.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 33.59 0 Td ( )Tj 0.01149 Tc -35.75 -1.18 Td (Mi)Tj -0.00099 Tc 1.19 0 Td (lberg)Tj -0.00394 Tc 0.12395 Tw 2.04 0 Td ( Weiss Bershad Hines & Lerach LLP and Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri LLP wer)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 32.33 0 Td (e)Tj -0.00139 Tc 0.00139 Tw -35.56 -1.18 Td (designated co-lead counsel.)Tj ET endstream endobj 65 1 obj 9493 endobj 66 1 obj << /Length 67 1 R >> stream q 108.12 0 0 -26.16 87.1753 774 cm /im1 Do Q BT 0 0 0 rg 1 i /RelativeColorimetric ri /F12 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Tr 12 0 0 12 320.5569 89.88 Tm (This article is reprinted with permission)Tj -0.00056 Tc 0.00056 Tw 3.23 -1.18 Td (from the May 24, 2000 edition of)Tj /F4 1 Tf 0.00117 Tc -0.00117 Tw -7.39 -1.18 Td (New York Law Journal)Tj /F12 1 Tf -0.00127 Tc 0.00127 Tw 9.66 0 Td (. \2512000 NLP IP Company.)Tj /F4 1 Tf 0.00087 Tc -0.00087 Tw -16.2 -1.16 Td (\(Read more American Lawyer Media news on the Web on law.com\))Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00336 Tc 0 Tw 10.92 0 0 10.92 94.237 34.8 Tm (www.paulweiss.com)Tj -0.00179 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 94.237 725.76 Tm (P)Tj 0.00186 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 99.877 725.76 Tm (AUL)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 115.837 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 118.357 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00423 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 120.397 725.76 Tm (W)Tj -0.00642 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 129.877 725.76 Tm (EISS)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 145.957 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 148.477 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00433 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 150.517 725.76 Tm (R)Tj -0.01163 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 157.117 725.76 Tm (IFKIND)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 183.397 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 185.917 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00423 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 187.957 725.76 Tm (W)Tj 0.00011 Tc 0.00746 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 197.437 725.76 Tm (HARTON )Tj 0.00513 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 232.477 725.76 Tm (&)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 240.157 725.76 Tm ( )Tj 0.00089 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 242.1969 725.76 Tm (G)Tj -0.00362 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 249.3969 725.76 Tm (ARRISON)Tj /F12 1 Tf -0.0009 Tc 0.0009 Tw 12 0 0 12 124.9569 697.68 Tm (Second Circuit Review: Attorney\222s Fee Awards in Common Fund Cases)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.03149 Tc 0 Tw 0.44 -2.34 Td (In)Tj 0 Tc 0.79 0 Td ( )Tj -0.01175 Tc 0.00175 Tw 0.23 0 Td (the five years since Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation \ Reform Ac)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 31.7 0 Td (t)Tj -0.01042 Tc 0.00041 Tw -35.72 -1.18 Td (of 1995,)Tj -0.01068 Tc 0.00069 Tw 3.53 0 Td ( practitioners)Tj -0.00075 Tc 0.00075 Tw 5.1 0 Td ( and commentators alike have debated whether plaintiffs in common)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 133.2369 660.24 Tm (1)Tj 0.00925 Tc 12 0 0 12 94.2369 641.28 Tm (fund)Tj 0.008 Tc 0.112 Tw 1.87 0 Td ( cases)Tj -0.00128 Tc 0.11128 Tw 2.52 0 Td ( serve as true client-principals, or as \223figureheads\224 facilitating\ the \223quest fo)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 31.28 0 Td (r)Tj -0.0105 Tc -35.67 -1.18 Td (attorn)Tj -0.00499 Tc 0.00499 Tw 2.27 0 Td (ey\222s fees.\224)Tj -0.00072 Tc 0.00072 Tw 4.47 0 Td ( In this month\222s column, we discuss )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.0006 Tc 0 Tw 14.84 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 4.66 0 Td ( v. )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.00084 Tc 0.00084 Tw 1.25 0 Td (Integrated Resources)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 171.5169 631.92 Tm (2)Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.00174 Tc 12 0 0 12 94.2369 612.96 Tm (Inc.)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 1.52 0 Td (,)Tj -0.00104 Tc 0.00104 Tw 0.55 0 Td ( which marks the Second Circuit\222s entry into this debate.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 115.4769 617.76 Tm (3)Tj -0.01149 Tc 12 0 0 12 130.2369 584.64 Tm (In)Tj 0 Tc 0.83 0 Td ( )Tj /F1 1 Tf 0.00932 Tc 0.27 0 Td (Goldbe)Tj -0.00049 Tc 3 0 Td (rger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00104 Tc 0.01103 Tw 1.72 0 Td (, an opinion written by Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin, and joined b)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 26.71 0 Td (y)Tj 0.00966 Tc -35.53 -1.18 Td (Judges)Tj 0.01039 Tc 0.16959 Tw 2.78 0 Td ( Chest)Tj -0.00034 Tc 0.17033 Tw 2.76 0 Td (er J. Straub and Robert D. Sack, the Second Circuit held that either th)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 30.02 0 Td (e)Tj 0.00932 Tc -35.56 -1.18 Td (\223lo)Tj -0.00171 Tc 1.25 0 Td (destar\224)Tj -0.00302 Tc 0.13303 Tw 2.82 0 Td ( or \223percentage of recovery\224 methods may appropriately be used to \ calculat)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 31.49 0 Td (e)Tj 0.00999 Tc -35.56 -1.18 Td (atto)Tj -0.0065 Tc 1.54 0 Td (rney\222s)Tj -0.00067 Tc 0.01067 Tw 2.46 0 Td ( fees in common fund litigation. Under the \223lodestar\224 method, the\ district cour)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 31.72 0 Td (t)Tj 0.00899 Tc -35.72 -1.18 Td (determine)Tj 0.00099 Tc 4.08 0 Td (s)Tj -0.00169 Tc 0.1917 Tw 0.39 0 Td ( the number of hours actually and reasonably billed to the class, and th\ e)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 31.03 0 Td (n)Tj -0.00899 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (mu)Tj -0.00151 Tc 0.00151 Tw 1.26 0 Td (ltiplies that figure by an appropriate hourly rate. Once the initial co\ mputation has been)Tj -0.01053 Tc 0.00053 Tw -1.26 -1.18 Td (made, the district court may)Tj -0.00157 Tc 0.00157 Tw 10.87 0 Td (, in its discretion, increase the lodestar by applying a multiplier)Tj -0.01089 Tc 0.0009 Tw -10.87 -1.18 Td (based on \223less objective factors\224 such as the risk of the litigati\ on and the per)Tj -0.0016 Tc 0.0016 Tw 29.69 0 Td (formance of the)Tj -0.00359 Tc 0 Tw -29.69 -1.18 Td (attorneys.)Tj 0 Tc 4.18 0 Td ( )Tj -0.00203 Tc 0.01202 Tw 0.27 0 Td ( Under the \223percentage of recovery\224 method, the court sets some pe\ rcentage o)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 31.22 0 Td (f)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 140.797 476.16 Tm (4)Tj -0.00066 Tc 12 0 0 12 94.237 457.2 Tm (the)Tj -0.00269 Tc 0.01158 Tw 1.22 0 Td ( recovery as a fee \(often 25 percent\), based )Tj -0.00095 Tc 0.00095 Tw 17.43 0 Td (upon the same \223less objective\224 factors used)Tj -0.00029 Tc 0.00029 Tw -18.65 -1.18 Td (to determine the lodestar multiplier.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 266.437 447.84 Tm (5)Tj /F1 1 Tf 0.00922 Tc 12 0 0 12 130.237 414.72 Tm (Goldberge)Tj 0.00099 Tc 4.36 0 Td (r)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00085 Tc 0.06085 Tw 0.39 0 Td ( vests district courts in the Second Circuit with sweeping authority )Tj 0.062 Tc 0 Tw 27.4704 0 Td (t)Tj 0 Tc 0.2796 0 Td (o)Tj 0.0105 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (exercise)Tj 0.01099 Tc 0.07899 Tw 3.35 0 Td ( di)Tj -0.00177 Tc 0.08177 Tw 1.14 0 Td (scretion in awarding attorneys\222 fees from a common fund.)Tj -0.00336 Tc 0.08333 Tw 24.1 0 Td ( Accordingly, th)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 6.97 0 Td (e)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 433.7169 405.36 Tm (6)Tj 0.00932 Tc 12 0 0 12 94.2369 386.4 Tm (Second)Tj 0 Tc 3 0 Td ( )Tj -0.00006 Tc 0.07007 Tw 0.33 0 Td (Circuit ruled in)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 6.2502 0 Td ( )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.0006 Tc 0.3198 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00015 Tc 0.07014 Tw 4.66 0 Td ( that the district court did not abuse its discretion )Tj 0.06999 Tc 0 Tw 20.4702 0 Td (b)Tj 0 Tc 0.4998 0 Td (y)Tj 0.00699 Tc -35.53 -1.18 Td (aw)Tj -0.00082 Tc 1.18 0 Td (arding)Tj -0.0014 Tc 0.08141 Tw 2.54 0 Td ( only 4 percent of a $54 million settlement recovery \($2.1 million\) ba\ sed upo)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 31.78 0 Td (n)Tj 0.00922 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (counsel\222s)Tj 0.004 Tc 0.09599 Tw 3.86 0 Td ( \223l)Tj -0.00171 Tc 0.09171 Tw 1.09 0 Td (odestar\224 of hours actually and reasonably billed. The district court\ was no)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 30.77 0 Td (t)Tj 0.00899 Tc -35.72 -1.18 Td (requi)Tj -0.00232 Tc 2.1 0 Td (red)Tj -0.00145 Tc 0.16145 Tw 1.27 0 Td ( to award 25 percent of the recovery \($13.5 million\), or to apply a mu\ ltiplie)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 32.3 0 Td (r)Tj -0.00087 Tc 0.00087 Tw -35.67 -1.18 Td (enhancement to counsels\222 lodestar.)Tj /F12 1 Tf 0.00104 Tc -0.00104 Tw 2.38 TL T*(Background of the Case)Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.01059 Tc 0 Tw 3 -2.34 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.01099 Tc 0.00099 Tw 4.56 0 Td ( arose from the securiti)Tj -0.00069 Tc 0.00069 Tw 8.96 0 Td (es litigation involving Michael Milken of Drexel)Tj 0.00685 Tc 0 Tw -16.52 -1.18 Td (Burnham)Tj -0.00137 Tc 0.05136 Tw 3.78 0 Td ( Lambert Group Inc. in the 1980s. Criminal and civil enforcement procee\ ding)Tj 0.00099 Tc 0 Tw 31.83 0 Td (s)Tj 0.00827 Tc -35.61 -1.18 Td (allegin)Tj 0 Tc 2.78 0 Td (g)Tj -0.00127 Tc 0.01126 Tw 0.49 0 Td ( securities fraud against Milken and Drexel had resulted in guilty pleas\ , fines, an)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 32.23 0 Td (d)Tj -0.00966 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (restitution.)Tj -0.01247 Tc -0.00584 Tw 4.47 0 Td ( The primary defendant in )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.01059 Tc 0 Tw 10.56 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 4.56 0 Td ( )Tj -0.01251 Tc 0.00252 Tw 0.23 0 Td (was Integrated Resources Inc., a financia)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 15.9 0 Td (l)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 144.517 235.4399 Tm (7)Tj 0.00862 Tc 12 0 0 12 94.237 216.4799 Tm (services)Tj 0.00932 Tc 0.17065 Tw 3.29 0 Td ( com)Tj -0.0009 Tc 0.1709 Tw 2.18 0 Td (pany that had defaulted on over $1 billion in short-term debt and whic)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 30.03 0 Td (h)Tj 0.008 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (allegedl)Tj 0 Tc 3.23 0 Td (y)Tj -0.00128 Tc 0.04128 Tw 0.47 0 Td ( was aided and abetted by Milken and Drexel in a scheme to defraud inves\ tors.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 522.637 207.1199 Tm (8)Tj -0.01196 Tc 0.00195 Tw 12 0 0 12 94.237 188.1599 Tm (When the prices of Integrated\222s pu)Tj -0.00133 Tc 0.00133 Tw 13.46 0 Td (blicly traded securities plummeted, a group of plaintiffs\222)Tj 0.00867 Tc 0 Tw -13.46 -1.18 Td (law)Tj 0.00949 Tc 0.0105 Tw 1.47 0 Td ( fi)Tj -0.00078 Tc 0.01079 Tw 0.9 0 Td (rms immediately filed lawsuits on behalf of the putative class, alleging\ violations o)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 33.3 0 Td (f)Tj 0 Tc -35.67 -1.18 Td (\247)Tj 0.00899 Tc 0.03099 Tw 0.51 0 Td ( 10\()Tj -0.00101 Tc 0.03101 Tw 1.65 0 Td (b\) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated th\ ereunder.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 33.59 0 Td ( )Tj 0.01149 Tc -35.75 -1.18 Td (Mi)Tj -0.00099 Tc 1.19 0 Td (lberg)Tj -0.00394 Tc 0.12395 Tw 2.04 0 Td ( Weiss Bershad Hines & Lerach LLP and Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri LLP wer)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 32.33 0 Td (e)Tj -0.00139 Tc 0.00139 Tw -35.56 -1.18 Td (designated co-lead counsel.)Tj ET endstream endobj 67 1 obj 9559 endobj 70 0 obj << /Length 71 0 R >> stream q 108.12 0 0 -26.16 87.1753 774 cm /im1 Do Q BT 0 0 0 rg 1 i /RelativeColorimetric ri /F12 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Tr 12 0 0 12 319.92 89.88 Tm (This article is reprinted with permission)Tj -0.00056 Tc 0.00056 Tw 3.23 -1.18 Td (from the May 24, 2000 edition of)Tj /F4 1 Tf 0.00117 Tc -0.00117 Tw -7.39 -1.18 Td (New York Law Journal)Tj /F12 1 Tf -0.00127 Tc 0.00127 Tw 9.66 0 Td (. \2512000 NLP IP Company.)Tj /F4 1 Tf 0.00087 Tc -0.00087 Tw -16.2 -1.16 Td (\(Read more American Lawyer Media news on the Web on law.com\))Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00336 Tc 0 Tw 10.92 0 0 10.92 93.6 34.8 Tm (www.paulweiss.com)Tj -0.00179 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 93.6 725.76 Tm (P)Tj 0.00186 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 99.24 725.76 Tm (AUL)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 115.2 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 117.72 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00423 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 119.76 725.76 Tm (W)Tj -0.00642 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 129.24 725.76 Tm (EISS)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 145.32 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 147.84 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00433 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 149.88 725.76 Tm (R)Tj -0.01163 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 156.48 725.76 Tm (IFKIND)Tj 0.00301 Tc 9.96 0 0 9.96 182.76 725.76 Tm (,)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 185.28 725.76 Tm ( )Tj -0.00423 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 187.32 725.76 Tm (W)Tj 0.00011 Tc 0.00746 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 196.8 725.76 Tm (HARTON )Tj 0.00513 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 231.84 725.76 Tm (&)Tj 0 Tc 0.00757 Tw 7.92 0 0 7.92 239.52 725.76 Tm ( )Tj 0.00089 Tc 0 Tw 9.96 0 0 9.96 241.56 725.76 Tm (G)Tj -0.00362 Tc 7.92 0 0 7.92 248.76 725.76 Tm (ARRISON)Tj /F12 1 Tf -0.0009 Tc 0.0009 Tw 12 0 0 12 124.32 697.68 Tm (Second Circuit Review: Attorney\222s Fee Awards in Common Fund Cases)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.03149 Tc 0 Tw 0.44 -2.34 Td (In)Tj 0 Tc 0.79 0 Td ( )Tj -0.01175 Tc 0.00175 Tw 0.23 0 Td (the five years since Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation \ Reform Ac)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 31.7 0 Td (t)Tj -0.01042 Tc 0.00041 Tw -35.72 -1.18 Td (of 1995,)Tj -0.01068 Tc 0.00069 Tw 3.53 0 Td ( practitioners)Tj -0.00075 Tc 0.00075 Tw 5.1 0 Td ( and commentators alike have debated whether plaintiffs in common)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 132.6 660.24 Tm (1)Tj 0.00925 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 641.28 Tm (fund)Tj 0.008 Tc 0.112 Tw 1.87 0 Td ( cases)Tj -0.00128 Tc 0.11128 Tw 2.52 0 Td ( serve as true client-principals, or as \223figureheads\224 facilitating\ the \223quest fo)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 31.28 0 Td (r)Tj -0.0105 Tc -35.67 -1.18 Td (attorn)Tj -0.00499 Tc 0.00499 Tw 2.27 0 Td (ey\222s fees.\224)Tj -0.00072 Tc 0.00072 Tw 4.47 0 Td ( In this month\222s column, we discuss )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.0006 Tc 0 Tw 14.84 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 4.66 0 Td ( v. )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.00084 Tc 0.00084 Tw 1.25 0 Td (Integrated Resources)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 170.88 631.92 Tm (2)Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.00174 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 612.96 Tm (Inc.)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 1.52 0 Td (,)Tj -0.00104 Tc 0.00104 Tw 0.55 0 Td ( which marks the Second Circuit\222s entry into this debate.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 114.84 617.76 Tm (3)Tj -0.01149 Tc 12 0 0 12 129.6 584.64 Tm (In)Tj 0 Tc 0.83 0 Td ( )Tj /F1 1 Tf 0.00932 Tc 0.27 0 Td (Goldbe)Tj -0.00049 Tc 3 0 Td (rger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00104 Tc 0.01103 Tw 1.72 0 Td (, an opinion written by Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin, and joined b)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 26.71 0 Td (y)Tj 0.00966 Tc -35.53 -1.18 Td (Judges)Tj 0.01039 Tc 0.16959 Tw 2.78 0 Td ( Chest)Tj -0.00034 Tc 0.17033 Tw 2.76 0 Td (er J. Straub and Robert D. Sack, the Second Circuit held that either th)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 30.02 0 Td (e)Tj 0.00932 Tc -35.56 -1.18 Td (\223lo)Tj -0.00171 Tc 1.25 0 Td (destar\224)Tj -0.00302 Tc 0.13303 Tw 2.82 0 Td ( or \223percentage of recovery\224 methods may appropriately be used to \ calculat)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 31.49 0 Td (e)Tj 0.00999 Tc -35.56 -1.18 Td (atto)Tj -0.0065 Tc 1.54 0 Td (rney\222s)Tj -0.00067 Tc 0.01067 Tw 2.46 0 Td ( fees in common fund litigation. Under the \223lodestar\224 method, the\ district cour)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 31.72 0 Td (t)Tj 0.00899 Tc -35.72 -1.18 Td (determine)Tj 0.00099 Tc 4.08 0 Td (s)Tj -0.00169 Tc 0.1917 Tw 0.39 0 Td ( the number of hours actually and reasonably billed to the class, and th\ e)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 31.03 0 Td (n)Tj -0.00899 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (mu)Tj -0.00151 Tc 0.00151 Tw 1.26 0 Td (ltiplies that figure by an appropriate hourly rate. Once the initial co\ mputation has been)Tj -0.01053 Tc 0.00053 Tw -1.26 -1.18 Td (made, the district court may)Tj -0.00157 Tc 0.00157 Tw 10.87 0 Td (, in its discretion, increase the lodestar by applying a multiplier)Tj -0.01089 Tc 0.0009 Tw -10.87 -1.18 Td (based on \223less objective factors\224 such as the risk of the litigati\ on and the per)Tj -0.0016 Tc 0.0016 Tw 29.69 0 Td (formance of the)Tj -0.00359 Tc 0 Tw -29.69 -1.18 Td (attorneys.)Tj 0 Tc 4.18 0 Td ( )Tj -0.00203 Tc 0.01202 Tw 0.27 0 Td ( Under the \223percentage of recovery\224 method, the court sets some pe\ rcentage o)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 31.22 0 Td (f)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 140.16 476.16 Tm (4)Tj -0.00066 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 457.2 Tm (the)Tj -0.00269 Tc 0.01158 Tw 1.22 0 Td ( recovery as a fee \(often 25 percent\), based )Tj -0.00095 Tc 0.00095 Tw 17.43 0 Td (upon the same \223less objective\224 factors used)Tj -0.00029 Tc 0.00029 Tw -18.65 -1.18 Td (to determine the lodestar multiplier.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 265.8 447.84 Tm (5)Tj /F1 1 Tf 0.00922 Tc 12 0 0 12 129.6 414.72 Tm (Goldberge)Tj 0.00099 Tc 4.36 0 Td (r)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00085 Tc 0.06085 Tw 0.39 0 Td ( vests district courts in the Second Circuit with sweeping authority )Tj 0.062 Tc 0 Tw 27.4704 0 Td (t)Tj 0 Tc 0.2796 0 Td (o)Tj 0.0105 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (exercise)Tj 0.01099 Tc 0.07899 Tw 3.35 0 Td ( di)Tj -0.00177 Tc 0.08177 Tw 1.14 0 Td (scretion in awarding attorneys\222 fees from a common fund.)Tj -0.00336 Tc 0.08333 Tw 24.1 0 Td ( Accordingly, th)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 6.97 0 Td (e)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 433.08 405.36 Tm (6)Tj 0.00932 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 386.4 Tm (Second)Tj 0 Tc 3 0 Td ( )Tj -0.00006 Tc 0.07007 Tw 0.33 0 Td (Circuit ruled in)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 6.2502 0 Td ( )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.0006 Tc 0.3198 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.00015 Tc 0.07014 Tw 4.66 0 Td ( that the district court did not abuse its discretion )Tj 0.06999 Tc 0 Tw 20.4702 0 Td (b)Tj 0 Tc 0.4998 0 Td (y)Tj 0.00699 Tc -35.53 -1.18 Td (aw)Tj -0.00082 Tc 1.18 0 Td (arding)Tj -0.0014 Tc 0.08141 Tw 2.54 0 Td ( only 4 percent of a $54 million settlement recovery \($2.1 million\) ba\ sed upo)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 31.78 0 Td (n)Tj 0.00922 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (counsel\222s)Tj 0.004 Tc 0.09599 Tw 3.86 0 Td ( \223l)Tj -0.00171 Tc 0.09171 Tw 1.09 0 Td (odestar\224 of hours actually and reasonably billed. The district court\ was no)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 30.77 0 Td (t)Tj 0.00899 Tc -35.72 -1.18 Td (requi)Tj -0.00232 Tc 2.1 0 Td (red)Tj -0.00145 Tc 0.16145 Tw 1.27 0 Td ( to award 25 percent of the recovery \($13.5 million\), or to apply a mu\ ltiplie)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 32.3 0 Td (r)Tj -0.00087 Tc 0.00087 Tw -35.67 -1.18 Td (enhancement to counsels\222 lodestar.)Tj /F12 1 Tf 0.00104 Tc -0.00104 Tw 2.38 TL T*(Background of the Case)Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.01059 Tc 0 Tw 3 -2.34 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf -0.01099 Tc 0.00099 Tw 4.56 0 Td ( arose from the securiti)Tj -0.00069 Tc 0.00069 Tw 8.96 0 Td (es litigation involving Michael Milken of Drexel)Tj 0.00685 Tc 0 Tw -16.52 -1.18 Td (Burnham)Tj -0.00137 Tc 0.05136 Tw 3.78 0 Td ( Lambert Group Inc. in the 1980s. Criminal and civil enforcement procee\ ding)Tj 0.00099 Tc 0 Tw 31.83 0 Td (s)Tj 0.00827 Tc -35.61 -1.18 Td (allegin)Tj 0 Tc 2.78 0 Td (g)Tj -0.00127 Tc 0.01126 Tw 0.49 0 Td ( securities fraud against Milken and Drexel had resulted in guilty pleas\ , fines, an)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 32.23 0 Td (d)Tj -0.00966 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (restitution.)Tj -0.01247 Tc -0.00584 Tw 4.47 0 Td ( The primary defendant in )Tj /F1 1 Tf -0.01059 Tc 0 Tw 10.56 0 Td (Goldberger)Tj /F0 1 Tf 0 Tc 4.56 0 Td ( )Tj -0.01251 Tc 0.00252 Tw 0.23 0 Td (was Integrated Resources Inc., a financia)Tj 0.002 Tc 0 Tw 15.9 0 Td (l)Tj 0 Tc 7.2 0 0 7.2 143.88 235.4399 Tm (7)Tj 0.00862 Tc 12 0 0 12 93.6 216.4799 Tm (services)Tj 0.00932 Tc 0.17065 Tw 3.29 0 Td ( com)Tj -0.0009 Tc 0.1709 Tw 2.18 0 Td (pany that had defaulted on over $1 billion in short-term debt and whic)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 30.03 0 Td (h)Tj 0.008 Tc -35.5 -1.18 Td (allegedl)Tj 0 Tc 3.23 0 Td (y)Tj -0.00128 Tc 0.04128 Tw 0.47 0 Td ( was aided and abetted by Milken and Drexel in a scheme to defraud inves\ tors.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 7.2 0 0 7.2 522 207.1199 Tm (8)Tj -0.01196 Tc 0.00195 Tw 12 0 0 12 93.6 188.1599 Tm (When the prices of Integrated\222s pu)Tj -0.00133 Tc 0.00133 Tw 13.46 0 Td (blicly traded securities plummeted, a group of plaintiffs\222)Tj 0.00867 Tc 0 Tw -13.46 -1.18 Td (law)Tj 0.00949 Tc 0.0105 Tw 1.47 0 Td ( fi)Tj -0.00078 Tc 0.01079 Tw 0.9 0 Td (rms immediately filed lawsuits on behalf of the putative class, alleging\ violations o)Tj -0.00299 Tc 0 Tw 33.3 0 Td (f)Tj 0 Tc -35.67 -1.18 Td (\247)Tj 0.00899 Tc 0.03099 Tw 0.51 0 Td ( 10\()Tj -0.00101 Tc 0.03101 Tw 1.65 0 Td (b\) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated th\ ereunder.)Tj 0 Tc 0 Tw 33.59 0 Td ( )Tj 0.01149 Tc -35.75 -1.18 Td (Mi)Tj -0.00099 Tc 1.19 0 Td (lberg)Tj -0.00394 Tc 0.12395 Tw 2.04 0 Td ( Weiss Bershad Hines & Lerach LLP and Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri LLP wer)Tj -0.004 Tc 0 Tw 32.33 0 Td (e)Tj -0.00139 Tc 0.00139 Tw -35.56 -1.18 Td (designated co-lead counsel.)Tj ET endstream endobj 71 0 obj 9493 endobj xref 0 2 0000000000 65535 f 0000137012 00000 n 4 1 0000137331 00000 n 64 4 0000137534 00001 n 0000147083 00001 n 0000147105 00001 n 0000156720 00001 n 70 2 0000156742 00000 n 0000166291 00000 n trailer << /Size 72 /Info 1 0 R /Root 3 0 R /Prev 136610 /ID[<279149201909e69a5f33a4b73770df1f>] >> startxref 166313 %%EOF