Pecou v. Bessemer Trust Company et al

Filing 82

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, AND CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARDS granting 69 Motion for Attorney Fees. It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Class Counsels request for an award of  6;1,666,666.67 in attorneys' fees and expenses approved. Having reviewed Class Counsel's application and the applicable legal authorities, the Court finds the requested amount (one-third of the $5 million Qualified Settlement Fund) to be reasonable and appropriate. 2. Class Counsel's separate request for litigation expenses in the amount of $27,756.38 and settlement administration expenses in the amount of $32,640.04 is denied as the Notice of Settlement did not s pecify that such expenses would be sought. Rather the Notice implied that these expenses were included in the request for one-third of the settlement fund sought for litigation fees and expenses. 3. Plaintiffs' request for a class representati ve service awards in the amount of $7,500 each to Named Plaintiffs Jubril Pecou and Ashley Schiefer ($15,000 total) is approved. The Court finds this award to be justified under the facts of this case and consistent with applicable legal authorities. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 2/6/2024) (tg) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUBRIL PECOU and ASHLEY SCHIEFER, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Bessemer Trust Company 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 2/6/2024 Case No. 1:22-cv-01019-MKV Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Administrative Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards Plaintiffs, v. BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY and PROFIT SHARING PLAN COMMITTEE OF BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY, Defendants. This matter came before the Court on a Fairness Hearing on February 6, 2024. During the Fairness Hearing, the Court considered, among other things, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Administrative Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants do not take any position with respect to this motion. Having considered the motion papers, the proposed Settlement Agreement which the Court preliminarily approved on August 15, 2023, the arguments of counsel, and all files, records, and proceedings in this action, the Court's approval at the Fairness Hearing of the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and otherwise being fully informed in the premises as to the facts and the law, It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Class Counsel’s request for an award of $1,666,666.67 in attorneys’ fees and expenses approved. Having reviewed Class Counsel’s application and the applicable legal authorities, the Court finds the requested amount (one-third of the $5 million Qualified Settlement Fund) to be reasonable and appropriate. 1 2. Class Counsel’s separate request for litigation expenses in the amount of $27,756.38 and settlement administration expenses in the amount of $32,640.04 is denied as the Notice of Settlement did not specify that such expenses would be sought. Rather the Notice implied that these expenses were included in the request for one-third of the settlement fund sought for litigation fees and expenses. 3. Plaintiffs’ request for a class representative service awards in the amount of $7,500 each to Named Plaintiffs Jubril Pecou and Ashley Schiefer ($15,000 total) is approved. The Court finds this award to be justified under the facts of this case and consistent with applicable legal authorities. IT IS SO ORDERED. February 6, 2024 Dated: __________________ _____________________________ Hon. Mary Kay Vyskocil United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?