A U.S. appeals court has invalidated a $57 million award in legal fees granted to attorneys representing chicken consumers in an antitrust lawsuit. The court determined that the federal judge’s decision regarding attorney compensation was insufficient and needs to be reevaluated.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comprising a panel of three judges, declared that the Chicago federal district judge in charge of the case did not adequately consider fee awards from other circuits or bids submitted by the class attorneys in different lawsuits.
This development is part of an ongoing legal battle surrounding allegations that Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, and other companies colluded to manipulate chicken prices. The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute led the challenge against the granted legal fee award.
The appeals court panel, led by Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, did not specify an appropriate amount for Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, the plaintiffs’ law firms. Last year, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin had granted them 33% of the $181 million settlement.
Read more: Chicken Price-Fixing Suit Nets $57.4M In Attorney Fees
Circuit Judge Brennan stated that “the determined one-third portion of the settlement requires more thorough explanation and consideration.” The case was reviewed by Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes and Circuit Judge Doris Pryor alongside Brennan.
Ted Frank, director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness, expressed hope that this ruling would lead to a greater sum for the class.
Steve Berman of Hagens Berman expressed confidence that Judge Durkin, after assessing the factors outlined by the appeals court, would arrive at a similar decision regarding the fee.
The consumer attorneys argued that Judge Durkin was well-equipped to determine a reasonable fee, given his extensive involvement in numerous related cases spanning six years and generating over 6,000 docket entries.
The appeals court instructed Judge Durkin to take a closer look at fee proposals made by class counsel while seeking appointments to lead various litigation cases. These bids, according to Brennan, “reflect the price of co-class counsel’s legal services in antitrust litigation.”
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand