Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER granting 96 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 96 Motion for Settlement. See attached orders. The Court awards attorneys fees of 30% of the Settlement Fund plus expenses in the amount of $45,537.12 plus interest on both amounts. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/20/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Supplement, # 3 Supplement) (Fernandez, Melissa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
In re STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. )
SECURITIES LITIGATION
)
)
)
This Document Relates To:
)
)
ALL ACTIONS.
)
)

748946_1

Master File No. 3:09-cv-01293-VLB
CLASS ACTION
ORDER AWARDING
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on August 20, 2012, on the
motion of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in the
action; the Court, having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted
herein, having found the settlement of the action to be fair, reasonable and adequate,
and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good cause appearing
therefore;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1.

All of the capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings

as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated December 29, 2011 (the
“Stipulation”).
2.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this application

and all matters relating thereto, including all members of the Class who have not
timely and validly requested exclusion.
3.

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff are entitled to a fee paid out of the

common fund created for the benefit of the Class. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444
U.S. 472, 478-79 (1980). In class action suits where a fund is recovered and fees are
awarded therefrom by the court, the Supreme Court has indicated that computing
fees as a percentage of the common fund recovered is the proper approach. Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900 n.16 (1984). The Second Circuit recognizes the propriety
of the percentage-of-the-fund method when awarding fees. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 121 (2d Cir. 2005).
4.

Lead Plaintiff’s counsel have moved for an award of attorneys’ fees of

30% of the Settlement Fund, plus interest.

-1748946_1

5.

This Court adopts the percentage-of-recovery method of awarding fees

in this case, and concludes that the percentage of the benefit is the proper method
for awarding attorneys’ fees in this case.
6.

The Court hereby awards attorneys’ fees of 30% of the Settlement Fund,

plus interest at the same rate as earned on the Settlement Fund. The Court finds the
fee award to be fair and reasonable. The Court further finds that a fee award of 30%
of the Settlement Fund is consistent with awards made in similar cases.
7.

Said fees shall be allocated among Plaintiffs’ Counsel by Lead Counsel

in manner which, in their good faith judgment, reflects each counsel’s contribution
to the institution, prosecution, and resolution of the action.
8.

The Court hereby awards expenses in an aggregate amount of

$45,537.12, plus interest.
9.

In making this award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid from

the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered each of the applicable factors set fort
in Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000). In evaluating the
Goldberger factors, the Court finds that:
(a)

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff expended considerable effort and

resources over the course of the action researching, investigating and prosecuting
Lead Plaintiff’s claims. The services provided by Lead Plaintiff’s counsel were
efficient and highly successful, resulting in a very good recovery for the Class
without the substantial expense, risk, and delay of continued litigation. Such
efficiency and effectiveness supports the requested fee percentage.
(b)

Cases brought under the federal securities laws are notably

difficult and notoriously uncertain. In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. & ERISA Litig.,
-2748946_1

No. MDL 1500, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17588, at *31 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2006).
“[S]ecurities actions have become more difficult from a plaintiff’s perspective in the
wake of the PSLRA.” In re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., Sec. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 166, 194
(E.D. Pa. 2000).

Despite the novelty and difficulty of the issues raised, Lead

Plaintiff’s counsel secured a very good result for the Class.
(c)

The recovery obtained and the backgrounds of the lawyers

involved in the lawsuit are the best evidence that the quality of Lead Plaintiff’s
counsel’s representation of the Class supports the requested fee. Lead Plaintiff’s
counsel demonstrated that notwithstanding the barriers erected by the PSLRA, they
would develop evidence to support a convincing case. Based upon Lead Plaintiff’s
counsel’s diligent efforts on behalf of the Class, as well as their skill and reputations,
Lead Plaintiff’s counsel were able to negotiate a very favorable result for the Class.
Lead Plaintiff’s counsel are among the most experienced and skilled practitioners in
the securities litigation field, and have unparalleled experience and capabilities as
preeminent class action specialists. Their efforts in efficiently bringing the action to
a successful conclusion against the Defendants are the best indicator of the
experience and ability of the attorneys involved. In addition, Defendants were
represented by highly experienced lawyers from a prominent firm. The standing of
opposing counsel should be weighed in determining the fee, because such standing
reflects the challenge faced by plaintiffs’ attorneys. The ability of Lead Plaintiff’s
counsel to obtain such a favorable settlement for the Class in the face of such
formidable opposition confirms the superior quality of their representation and the
reasonableness of the fee request.

-3748946_1

(d)

The requested fee of 30% of the Settlement is within the range

normally awarded in cases of this nature.
(e)

Public policy supports the requested fee, because the private

attorney general role is “‘vital to the continued enforcement and effectiveness of the
Securities Acts.’” Taft v. Ackermans, No. 02 Civ. 7951 (PKL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9144, at *33 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (citation omitted).
(f)

Lead Plaintiff’s counsel’s total lodestar is $712,737.50. A 30% fee

represents a slight 1.26 multiplier to their aggregate lodestar.
10.

The awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses, and interest earned thereon,

shall be paid to Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund immediately after the date
this Order is executed subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the
Stipulation and in particular ¶6.2 thereof, which terms, conditions, and obligations
are incorporated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8/20/2012
DATED: _____________

/s/
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE VANESSA L. BRYANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4748946_1