Judge Robinson boldly went where no North Carolina Judge writing published Opinions had gone before last month in the case of Wheeler v. Wheeler, 2018NCBC117. The subject was a corporate officer’s right to the advancement of legal fees incurred in defending against a lawsuit.
Judge Robinson noted that there was only “one case
The Court approved an award of attorneys’ fees of $4 million to class counsel. It found the fees to be reasonable under the percentage of fund approach, the lodestar-multiplier approach, and the fee factors considered in North Carolina cases based on Rule 1.5 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
This Motion to Intervene before the Court in this class action case against Microsoft was filed not by a potential party, but by a group of lawyers seeking to share in any fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. The Court refused to allow the lawyers to intervene, because lawyers who have never been counsel of record
The Court declined to award attorneys’ fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Statute. It found that there was no unwarranted refusal to fully resolve the matter, the case involved unique issues of law, and the defendant had valid reasons to refuse to settle this matter and to litigate it to conclusion.
This opinion on attorneys’ fees was issued in tandem with the opinion in In re Wachovia Shareholders Litigation. Lawsuits had filed over a tender offer for the company, which led the Board of Directors to conduct an auction process which led to a higher price per share. Thereafter, class counsel and the defendant had
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
This is the third of a series of cases involving Sunbelt, this one involving the successful plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. §75-16.1.
The case considered post-trial motions, after plaintiff did not prevail on its claims for defamation and unfair and deceptive practices. The court awarded costs for expert witness fees, pursuant to its discretionary authority under under N.C.G.S. §6-20. The Court also awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. §75-16.1, which permits an award of attorneys’ fees when
The determination of reasonable attorneys’ fee under nationwide class action settlement is within the Court’s discretion. The court considered Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(b) in making its award. It rejected the percentage of fund approach given the uncertainty of the amount that might ultimately be awarded to the members of the class. Class counsel
The Court considered an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel, who had settled eleven separate antitrust class actions, including one in North Carolina.
The value of the settlement to the North Carolina class was slight. The Court observed that it was a cost of litigation settlement of approximately three cents on the potential dollar