Judge Blake in the USDC for the District of Maryland has issued this opinion awarding attorneys' fees in the massive $1.1 billion Royal Ahold settlement. Some quick but notable points:

1. Class counsel (Entwistle and Cappucci) was permitted under its retainer agreement with lead plaintiff COPERA to seek up to 20% of the settlement amount, but instead sought just 15% ($163.3 million, or a multiplier of 3.21 times the lodestar of $50.8 million).

2. The Court awarded Class Counsel 12% ($130.6 million), lopping off nearly $33 million from the requested amount. The Court stated:

I agree with plaintiffs that the range of comparable settlements should include some below $1 billion as well as those few that substantially exceed $1 billion.9 Strictly on a percentage comparison approach, a 12% fee award appears to me a reasonable percentage of the class recovery.

Application of the Barber factors, some of which already have been addressed, also supports an award of this magnitude. On the one hand, settlement was achieved well before trial, presumably aided by significant concessions about the fraud at U.S. Food Service and the existence of “side letters” related to the joint venture consolidation. While some of the legal issues were familiar, others were more difficult and, at least as to subject-matter jurisdiction, novel in this Circuit. While the case was not “undesirable,” lead counsel was required to and did devote exceptional resources to the prosecution, facing some risk of non-recovery as the fee was entirely contingent under the retainer agreement with COPERA, and Royal Ahold’s financial position was unclear. The global aspect of the case raised additional practical and legal complexities, as did the parallel criminal proceedings in another district. The settlement obtained is among the largest cash settlements ever in a securities class action case and represents an estimated 40% recovery of possible provable damages. The notice process appears to have been very successful not only in reaching but also in eliciting claims from a substantial percentage of those eligible for recovery.

The court concluded by noting (listen up Lies, Damn Lies and WSJ Law Blog!) that

Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel were vigorous and extremely competent in their litigation against equally well-qualified defense firms.