Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04460/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04460-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The lodestar amount of fees is only supported by conclusory information rather than an

itemization of time and services rendered. Even assuming the calculation is accurate, the fees for

plaintiffs' counsel represents a fee which includes a substantial multiplier of the lodestar amount. 

The court is also concerned that defense counsel faced, at least to some extent, what appeared to be a

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING SETTLEMENT—06-04460 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 09/15/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re SIGMA DESIGNS, INC. DERIVATIVE

LITIGATION

______________________________________

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

No. C-06-04460 RMW

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS' FEES

AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS

The parties' motion for final approval of the settlement including attorneys' fees in the 

above-titled action came on for hearing on August 8, 2008. The court requested additional

information and the parties have responded.

The court hereby approves the award of fees and costs in the total amount of $2,250,000 as

agreed to by the parties. The court still has some lingering doubts about the appropriateness of the

fees requested even after reviewing the supplemental information provided but nevertheless will

approve them.1

 The reasons for approval include: (1) the settlement is fair to the derivative plaintiffs

Case 5:06-cv-04460-RMW Document 92 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

potential conflict of interest in that it was corporate counsel during the time that some of the alleged

back-dating occurred. Since an Audit Committee, together with an independent law firm, looked

into the back-dating circumstances and found no evidence suggesting defense counsel was involved

in it, the court does not see a basis for suspecting that defense counsel negotiated a settlement that

was in its best interests at the expense of the interests of the class as derivative plaintiffs. 

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING SETTLEMENT—06-04460 RMW

MAG 2

in enforcing the interests of the company and the amount of the fee award does not affect the

recovery by the plaintiffs; (2) the fee award was separately negotiated and any reduction would only

benefit the defendants who agreed to pay the fees requested; (3) the defendants agreed to the fees

and maintain that they are reasonable; (4) no objection was filed with respect to the fees requested;

(5) based upon the information provided, plaintiffs' counsel were instrumental in initiating the

investigation of Sigma's back-dated options and pursued that investigation, negotiated with the

defendants and litigated for a two year period before the matter was settled; and (6) the parties are

represented by experienced, extremely competent securities lawyers. 

DATED: 9/15/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04460-RMW Document 92 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING SETTLEMENT—06-04460 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Travis E. Downs , III travisd@csgrr.com

Lawrence Timothy Fisher ltfisher@bramsonplutzik.com

James Arthur Maro jmaro@sbtklaw.com

Alan Roth Plutzik aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com

Kathryn Anne Schofield kschofield@bramsonplutzik.com

Shawn A. Williams shawnw@csgrr.com,travisd@csgrr.com

Eric L. Zagar ezagar@sbtklaw.com

Darren Jay Robbins kpopovich@sbtklaw.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Boris Feldman boris.feldman@wsgr.com

Gwen Catherine Parker gparker@wsgr.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 09/15/08 /s/ JAS

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-04460-RMW Document 92 Filed 09/15/08 Page 3 of 3