The Court considered an award of attorneys fees following its determination that certain termination provisions of a merger agreement were invalid. This opinion was issued in tandem with opinion in In re Quintiles Transnational Shareholders Litigation.
Fee applications were made by attorneys representing a class of shareholders, as well as attorneys representing a derivative plaintiff. The Court observed that the derivative action did not fit well in the "fast paced" context of litigation over a merger. It stated that such claims were more suited to being litigated as shareholder rights claims as opposed to corporate (derivative) claims for breach of fiduciary duty.
The Court refused to award attorneys fees in the derivative action, observing that it "was filed solely to get a piece of the litigation fee pie." It was also critical of the failure of the derivative plaintiff to seek a shortening of the statutory 90 day waiting period. Finally, the derivative action was moot, as the merger it sought to challenge had already occurred.
The Court observed, in dicta, that "the hourly rate claimed by New York counsel is astonishingly out of line with market rates."
On the class action claims, the Court determined that it could award fees, even though the litigation had not created a common fund. It then analyzed the fee request and discussed the level of specificity it expected in fee applications.