2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-8-2009 

# In Re: D iet D ru gs
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2363

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" In Re: Die t Dr u gs " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 339. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/339P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N os . 08- 2363 & 08- 2387

_____________ I N R E: DI ET DR UG S ( PHEN TERM I NE/ FENFLURA M I NE/

DEX FENFLURA M I NE) P RO DUC T L I AB I L I T Y L I T I GAT I ON R a n d yH a g u e , J a n a L . H a rr is , a n d B ri a n S . R ie p e n , E s q ., A ppel l ant s i n 08- 2363 L aw Fi r m s of Fr eedl and, Far m er , R us s o, B ehr en & Shel l er and R aym ond V al or i , P. A

. , i ndi vi dual l yand on beha l f of

D i etD rugs cl i ent s r epr es ent ed, A ppel l ant s i n 08- 2387

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 99- cv- 20593) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I

_______________ A r gued J ul y8, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , A M B R O a n d J O R D A N , C irc u it

Judges

.2 ( Fi l ed O ct ober8, 2009)

_______________ Ho wa r d J

. Ba s h ma n [ AR GUE D] 2300 C om put erA venue - Sui t e G

- 22 W i l l ow G r ove, PA 19090 Br i a n S

. Ri e p e n [ AR GUE D] 4607 W

. L over s L ane D al l as , T X 75209 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts R a n d

y H a g u e , Ja n a L . H

a rr is and B r i an S. R i epen Ra ymo n d W. Va l o r i [ AR GUE D] Ra ymo n d Va l o r i , P

. A. 2843 E xecut i ve Park D r i ve W es t on, FL 33331 C ou nself

or App el l an t

s Freedl an d Farm er R usso B ehren & Shell er andR aym on d V alori S ol H

. W ei ss A napol , Schw ar t z, W ei s s , C ohan, Fel dm an & Sm al l ey 1 7 1 0 S p ru c e S tre e t Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C har l es R

. Par ker L o c k e L o rd B iss e ll & L id d e ll 600 T r avi s St r eee t 3400 J P M or gan C has e Tow er H ous t on, T X 77002 C l as s C ouns el

& Appel l ee3 A rn o ld L e v in M i c h a e l D. F i s h b e i n [ AR GUE D] L aur ence S. B erm an L evi n, Fi s hbei n, Sedr an & B erm an 510 W al nutSt r eet- Sui t e 500 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C la ss C o u n se l, P la in tif

fs’ L ia iso n C o u n se l & P l ai nt i f f s ’ C o- Lead C ouns el i n M D L 1203 on behal

f of Appel l ees

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge

. T hr ee l aw fi r m s and s om e of thei rcl i ent s chal l enge the fi nal aw ar d of att or ney s ’ fees t hatthe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia e n ter e d o n b e h a lf of cl as s couns el i n t hi s l andmar k cl as s act i on. Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff

i r m the aw ar d. I . Backg r ound A. D i et

D r ugs Li t igat i on and Set t l em ent T hi s appea l ar i s es fr om m ul t i di s t r i ctm as s t or tl i t i gat i on conce r ni ng t he appet i t e suppr es s ant s fenf l ur ami ne, m arket ed as “Pondi m i n, ” and dexfe nfl uarm i ne, m arket ed as “R edux. ” O verForconveni ence , w e r efe rt o t he mul t i di s t r i ctfede r al 1 li ti g ati o n in the sing u lar, as a “c ase , ” re co g n izi n g , h o w ev er, t hati ti s an aggr egat i on of num er ous cas es i nvol vi ng a l ar ge num berof i ndi vi dual s w hos e l i ves have be en af fec t ed bythe l i t i gati on and i t s und erl y i ng even t s. 4 i t s deca de- l ong cour s e, the cas e has gener at ed nea r l y8000 1 s epar at e or der s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our tand numer ous pr i or ru lin g s a n d o p in io n s f

ro m th is C o u rt
. E

. g. , I n r e D i et

D r ugs P ro d s. L ia b . L iti

g ., 5 4 3 F .3 d 1 7 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); I n r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 4 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); In re D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 4 1 8 F .3 d 3 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); In r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 4 0 1 F

. 3 d 1 4 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); I n r e D i et

D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 3 8 5 F

. 3 d 3 8 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); I n r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 369 F

. 3 d 2 9 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); I

n r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 282 F. 3d 220 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. A l t hough w e have al r eadyset fo r t h t he backgr ound of the ca s e and the cl as s act i on s ett l ement ag ree m en t m o re th an o n c e , s ee, e. g. , D i et D r ugs , 385 F. 3d at 3 8 9 -9 3 ; D i et

D r ugs , 2 8 2 F .3 d a t 2 2 5 -2 9 , w e d o so o n c e m o re in o rde r t o p rov ide c o n text fo r ou r di s c u s s io n o f th e f ee aw ard e n te re d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. B e g in n in g in 1 9 9 7 , a tid e o f p r o d u c ts liab ili tylaw su its a r o s e a f t e r r e s e a r c h e r s d i s c o v e r e d a n a s s o c i a t i o n b e t we e n s o me comm onl ypr es cr i bed appe t i t e s uppr es s ant s and a s er i es of d isord ers g en era ll yk n o w n as v alvu lar he art disea se (“ V H D ”). T he drugs i nvol ved w er e “f en- ph en , ” a di etdrug r egi m en that pai r ed fe nfl uar i m i ne w i t h phent erm i ne, and dexf enl fuarm i ne, w hi ch w as devel oped t o pr oduce the s ame anor ect ic eff ect s asWy e t h , a De l a wa r e c o rp o r a t i o n , wa s p r e v i o u s l yk n o wn 2 as A m er i can H om e Pr oduct s butchange d i t s name i n M ar ch 2 0 0 2 . W e w ill re f

e r to th e c o m p a n ya s W y e th th ro u g h o u t th is o p in io n . F e n -p h e n a n d d e x f

e n f lu a rm in e w e re late r lin k e d to 3 pri m arypu l m on aryhypert ensi on (“PP H ”) as w el l

. P P H i s a r ar e butdeadl ydi s eas e thati s m or e comm onl yknow n as pul m onaryar t er i al hyper t ens i on, orPA H , i n t he medi cal c o m m u n ityto d a y . B e c a u se it w a s c a lled P P H in th e late 1 9 9 0 s , w e w ill r e f

e r t o it a s s u c h in th is o p in io n .

5 fen- phen w i t houtt he nee d fora drug pai r i ng. E vi dence of s er i ous cor onarys i de ef fec t s fr om these drugs pr om pt ed the U ni t ed St at es Food and D rug A dm i ni s tr at i on ( “FD A ”) t o i s s ue a publ i c hea l t h advi s or yal ert , and the pharm ace ut i cal company W y eth, w hi ch w as r es pons i bl e for t he devel opm en t and

2 pr om ot i on o f fe nfl ur ami ne and de xfenf l uarm i ne, t o w i t hdr aw t he dru gs fr om t he mar ket

. For m erfen- phen and 3 dexfe nfl uarm i ne user s fi l ed l aw s ui t s and i ns t i tut ed cl as s act i ons i n num er ous fede r al j ur i s di ct i ons and st at e cour t s . Som e of the ear l i es tl i t i gat i on t ook pl ace i n s t at e court s i n T exas , w h ere at t or ney s , i ncl udi ng A ppel l antB r i an S. R i epen, br ought num er ous act i ons agai ns tW y eth. T hos e s ui ts ge ner at ed ext ens i ve di s covery , i ncl udi ng the pr oduct i on by W y eth of app roxi m at el yt hree m i l l i on pag es of d ocu m ents
. M anydietdrug suit s w e re al so fi l ed in federal cou rt s. Pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1407, t he J udi ci al Panel forM ul t i di s t r i ct L i t i gat i on t r ans ferr ed al l of thos e ca s es , i ncl udi ng m or e than 130Forconveni ence , w e w i l l s om et i m es us e the s i ngul ar 4 pr onouns “he” and “hi s ” i n r efe r ence t o V al or i w hen attri b u ti n g arg u m en ts m ad e c o ll ec ti v elyb yF ree d land , F arm er, R u s s o , B e h re n & S h e lle r a n d R a ym o n d V a lo ri P .A

. 6 put at i ve cl as s act i ons , t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a forcoor di nat ed and/ or cons ol i dat ed pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs underM D L D ocketN o. 1203 ( t he “M D L ”)

. I ncl uded among t hos e ac t i ons w ere fourcas es fil ed b yR iepe n . L ikew ise, A p p ell an ts Fre ed land , F a rm er, R u ss o , B e h re n & S h e ller a n d R a ym o n d V a lo ri P .A . (co llec tiv e ly “V al or i ” ) r epr es ent ed appr oxi m at el yt en cl i ent s i nvol ved i n the

4 M D L

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed a pl ai nt i ffs ’ m anage m ent comm i t t ee ( t he “PM C ”) t o over s ee the l i t i gat i on and t o conduct di s cov ery of gene r al appl i cabi l i t yt o t he M D L pl ai nt i ffs

. T he PM C began i t s di s coveryeffo rt s in l at e 1998, and, byM ar ch 1 9 9 9 , ith a d tak e n 8 0 d e p o sitio n s a n d a m a ss e d a p p ro x im a tely ni ne m i l l i on pages of document s , fr om w hi ch i tw i nnow ed 5, 000 d o c u m e n t s t h a t , t h e P M C c l a i m s , e s t a b l i s h e d W ye t h ’ s l i a b i l i t y. T he PM C s t or ed the di s covery r es ul t s i n an el ectr oni c document d e p o sito rya n d m a d e it a v a ilab le to c o u n se l f o r e v e ryp lain tiff

in t he M D L

. A s par tof the di s cover y pr oces s , r epr es ent at i ves of th e P M C a tten d e d re g u lar sta tu s c o n f e re n c e s h e ld b ya c o u rtappoi nt ed s peci al di s coverym as t er( t he “Spec i al M as t er ”) and p r e p a r e d m o t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s r e g a r d i n g c l a s s -w id e d is c o v e r y, in a d d itio n to a d d re s s in g a v a ri e ty o f o th e r p re -t ri a l is s u e s .T he s t at e courti n W es tV i r gi ni a had c ert i fi ed a pe r s onal 5 in ju ry c la s s a s w e ll. T h o se o p tio n s, su m m a riz e d h e re , are sp e lled o u t in 6 gr eat erdet ai l i n D i et

D r ugs , 431 F. 3d at144- 45, and D i et D r ugs , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 3 8 9 -9 1

. 7 U l t i m at el y , t he PM C fi l ed a class a c tio n a g a in st W y e th to p u rsue m ed ical m o n it o ri n g o n b eh alf o f f o rm er u sers o f W y eth’s di etdrugs . T he PM C m oved forcl as s cert i fi ca ti on, and, on A u g u st 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 , the C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n . B yth e n , sta te cou rt s i n Il l i no i s, N ew Jer sey , N ew Y ork, P enn sy l van i a, T exas, W as hi ng ton , and W es tV i r gi ni a had a l s o cert i fi ed medi cal m on i t ori ng cl asses . 5
I n A pr i l 1999, W y eth, the PM C , and a c oal i t i on of c o u n se l in v o lv e d in th e sta te c o u rt c las s a c tio n s b e g a n to negot i at e a na t i onw i de s ett l ement
. O n N ovember18, 1999, t hey exec ut ed an e l abora t e s ett l ementagr eement( t he “Sett l ement A greem ent”) t hat cont em plat e d a seri es of o pti on s for cl ass m ember s . A tt he out s et , cl as s m ember s coul d obt ai n an

6 echocard iogr am atW y eth’ s expens e, t o det erm i ne i f they s uffe r ed fr om V H D , ort heycoul d exer ci s e an init i al opt
- out fro m the sett lem en t an d p u rsue their claim s in sep a ra te to rt cas es . C l as s m ember s w ho chos e nott o t ake the i ni t i al opt
- out a n d w e re d iag n o se d w ith V H D w o u ld h a v e a se c o n d c h o ice to m ake: t heycoul d r ece i ve a cas h and m edi cal s ervi ces benef i tor e x e rc ise a n in ter m e d iate opt- ou tfrom the S ett l em ent A gre e m e n t,T h o se d rug u sers w h o w ere d iagn o sed w ith P P H w ere 7 n o t c o v e re d b yth e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t. T he m at ri x g ri d recog nized fi ve level s of dis ease 8 severi t y , rangi ng from L evel I (l eastsevere) t o L evel V (m ost s e v e re ). 8 w h ich , ag a in , w o u ld f

re e th e m to tu rn to th e to rt sy ste m . W y e th 7 ag ree d to w aive it s statute-of -l im it ati o n s d ef

en s e a g ains t t o rt cl ai m s by tho se opt i ng outatthatpoi nt
. I n excha nge, i nt erm edi at e opt
- outcl ai m an t s w er e barr ed fr om s eeki ng p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a g a in s t th e c o m p a n y . C l as s m ember s w ho t ook the ca s h and medi cal s ervi ces b e n e f it an d d e v e lo p e d m o re se rio u s V H D b e f o re 2 0 1 5 c o u ld choos e fr om y eta thi r d pai rof opt i ons . T hey co u ld r ece i ve paym enti n acc or dance w i t h a mat r i x of ca l cul at i ons that assigned compens at i on bas ed on di ffe r entl evel s of s ever i t yof m edi cal condi t i ons . T he “matr i x cl ai m s ” w oul d be pr oces s ed 8 b a se d o n th e a ttes tatio n o f a p h y sic ian , w ith W y e th b e in g a b le to t estt he fo un dati on s of t he clai m s th rou gh an au ditprocess perm i t t i ng m edical revi ew of u p to 15% of all such clai m s, un l ess the C ou rtordered an ex pan d e d au ditfor go od cause s h o wn . Al t e r n a t i v e l y , c l a s s me mb e r s wi t h wo r s e n i n g VHD c o u ld e x e rc ise a b a c k -e n d o p t-o u t so th a t th e y c o u ld p u rsu e th e ir cl a i ms i n t o r t u n d e r t h e s a me c o n d i t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o t he in te rm e d ia te o p t- o u t c la im s . T o f u n d th e se v a rio u s re m e d ies , W y e th a g re e d to c re a te a $ 3 .7 5 b ill io n se ttl e m e n t f u n d to b e a d m in iste re d b yc o u rt-9 a p p o in ted tru ste e s. T h e se ttl e m e n t f u n d w a s to b e d iv id e d in to t w o s ub- funds : Fund A , i nt o w hi ch $1 bi l l i on w oul d be i nj ect ed, w ou l d b e desi gn at ed for t he p aym ent of al l no n-m at ri x b enef i t s. Fund B , w hi ch w oul d r ece i ve $2. 55 bi l l i on, w oul d be des i gnat ed forth e p ay m ent of the mat r i x benef i t s . T he r emai ni ng $200 m i l l i on w o u ld go i nt o an ac countdenomi nat ed the “Fund A L egal Fees E s cr ow A ccount , ” fr om w hi ch at t orney s w ho hel ped t o cr eat e and i m pl ementt he Sett l eme n tA gr eementw oul d be p a id f o r s e rv ic e s re la te d to th e n o n -m a tr ix b e n e f its

. O n A ugus t28, 2000, the D i s t r i ctC our t ce rt ifi ed the s et t l ementcl as s and appr oved the Set t l ement A gr eement
. T he sett lem en t w as h ail ed as an inn o v ati v e d ep arture f rom o rdin ary se ttl e m e nts requi ri ng cla ss m e m b e rs to m a k e a “ o n c e -a n d -f o r-a ll c h o i c e ” b e t we e n a p r i v a t e r e me d ys c he me a n d th e t o r ts y s t e m. R ic h a rd A . N a g a re d a , A ut onomy, P eace , and P utO pt i ons i n the Mas s Tort

C l as s A ct i on , 1 1 5 H arv . L

. R ev . 7 4 7 , 7 9 6 (20 0 2 ). Pl ai n t i f f s ’ c o u n s e l a n d W y e t h wer e p r a i s e d i n p a r t i c u l a rf or cr eat i ng t he s t aged opt

- outoppor tuni t i es , w hi ch w er e vi ew ed as a bol d compromi s e betw een the compet i ng conce rns of i n d i v i d u a l a u t onom yforthe cl as s m ember s and a c om pr ehens i ve le g a l p e a c e f

o r t h e c o rp o ra te d e f

e n d a n t. S e e id

. at 797- 805. B yth e su m m e r o f

2 0 0 2 , h o w e v e r, th e n u m b e r o f m a trix claim s su b m itted to the trust an d the n u m b er o f c lass m em b ers w h o e x e rc ise d th e ir in ter m e d iate a n d b a c k -e n d o p t-o u t rig h ts ( col l ect i vel y , “dow ns tr eam opt
- out s ”) had gr ow n w ell bey ond W y et h’s ex pectat i on s. D ou bti ng the v eraci t yof m anyof these cl ai m s , W y eth and the PM C s ought , and w er e gr ant ed, an or der d ire c tin g th e m e d ica l r e v iew o f 1 0 0 % o f th e c laim s s u b m itt e d to t he s et t l ementt rus t
. W hi l e t he 100% audi thel ped t o ens ur e theT h e to tal th a t W y e th h a s s p e n t, or w ill sp e n d , to s e ttl e 9 di etdrug l aw s ui t s i s uncert ai n. O ne comm ent at ores t i m at ed W y e t h ’ s “ t o t a l p o t e n t i a l c o s t ” a t$ 2 2 b i l l i o n . Fr a n c i s E. M c G o v e rn , A Mo d e l S ta te Ma ss T o rt S e ttl e m e n t S ta tu te , 80 T ul

. L

. R ev. 1809, 1814 ( 2006)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tputthe val ue of the funds cr eat ed pur s uantt o t he Set t l ement A g re e m e n t, a s a m e n d e d , a t $ 6 .4 4 b illio n . I n r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 5 5 3 F

. S u p p . 2 d 4 4 2 , 4 7 2 (E

. D

. P a. 20 0 8 ). 10 i ntegr i t yof the cl ai m s r eview , i t al so i ncreased the cost of trust admi ni s t r at i on. B etw een t he i nfl ux of new cl ai m s and the hea vy pr oces s i ng bur den theycr eat ed, W y eth fea r ed t hat i tw oul d not have s uffi ci entfunds t o s at i s fyal l of i t s di et drug l i abi l i t i es . T he D istric t C o u rt lik e w ise c o n c lu d e d th a t th e se ttl e m e n t w a s in j e o p a r d y , c omm e nt i n g t h a t“ i ti s n o tu n l i k e l y , a b s e n ts o me cu rati v e a m en d m en t, that tho u san d s o f de serv ing class m em b ers m ayneverr ece i ve an ycompensa t i on forthei rm edi cal condi t i ons fr om i nges t i ng Pondi m i n and R edux. ” In re D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li t ig. , 2 2 6 F .R .D . 4 9 8 , 5 0 9 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 5 ). W y eth and the PM C t hus w or ked t o amend t he S et t l em ent A greem ent. M ost si gn i fi cantl y for presentpu rposes, o n e o f th e c h a n g e s , d e n o m in a te d th e “ S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t,” al t er ed the paym ent m atr i ci es s o t hatpendi ng m atr i x l evel I and II c la im a n ts b e c a m e s o -c a lle d “ C a te g o ry O n e C la s s M e m b e rs .” T h e c lai m s o f th o se C ateg o ryO n e C lass M em b ers w ere a d m in iste re d se p a r a telyf ro m th e se ttl e m e n t tru st, su b jec ted to in d e p e n d e n t m e d ica l r e v iew , a n d c o m p e n sa ted f ro m a se p a ra te f u n d c a lled th e “ S u p p lem e n tal C las s S e ttl e m e n t F u n d ,” in to w hi ch W y eth i nj ect ed an a ddi t i onal $1. 275 bi l l i on. 9I n I n r e D i et D r ug Li t i

g. , C a lifo rn ia J u d icia l C o u n c il 10 Pr ocee di ng N o. 4032, the C our tent er ed a c oor di nat i on or der requi ri ng plai nti ffs t o d epo si ti nto the M D L F ee and C ost A ccounta per cent age of thei rr ecove r yequal of tw o- t hi r ds the a ss e ss m e n t lev ied b yth e D istric t C o u rt in th e M D L , in e x c h a n g e f

o r a c c e ss to P M C w o rk p ro d u c t. A tto rn e y s in var i ous ot hers t at e ca s es ent er ed i nt o agr eement s r efl ect i ng th e s a m e te rm s w ith th e P M C

. Forexampl e, 6% of the val ue of the s ett l ementobt ai ned 11 b ya c laim a n t in a c o o rd in a ted sta te c a se , tak e n f ro m h is l aw y er ’ s 30% fee , w oul d amount t o a w i t hhol di ng of 11 B

. A t t or neys ’Fees T he M D L and sett l ement pr oces s y i el ded fourpot ent i al s o u r c e s f o r f e e s t o c o m p e n s a t e t h e P M C a n d o t h e r a t t o r n e ys w ho had a ha nd i n cr eat i ng comm on benef i t s for t he enorm ous cl as s of cl aim an ts ( co ll ec ti v ely , “C lass C o u n sel”). First , thr ough P retri al O rde r (“P T O ”) 4 6 7 , en tered in 19 9 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt o rd e re d W y e th to w ith h o ld 9 % o f th e p a ym e n ts it m a d e to pl ai nt i ffs w hos e ca s es w er e tr ans ferr ed t o the M D L and pl ace t hos e fu nds i n t he “M D L Fee and CostA ccount , ” fr om w hi ch C l as s C ouns el w oul d be compens at ed forpr ovi di ng cas e- w i de s ervi ces . L i kew i s e, t he C our tpr ovi ded fort he s eques t r at i on of 6% of t h e v al ue of c l ai m s i n s t at e courtcas es w her e the l i t i gati on w as coordinat ed w i t h the M D L

. T hat m on eyal so 10 w ent i nt o t he M D L Fee and C os t A ccount
. T h e p erc ent ages w ere to be de d u cted fro m the fe es du e t o the i n d ividu al l aw y ers forthe opt

- outcl ai m ant s w ho r ecove r ed aga i ns tW y eth. 11appr oxi m at el y20% of the att orney ’ s fee

. B yt he t erm s of the Seventh A m endment , the fund 12 admi ni s t r at orw as t o deductthe C om m on B enef i tPer cent age A m ou nt fr om anydis tri bu t i on m ade to a C at ego ryO ne C l ass M e m b e r. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t se t th e C o m m o n B e n e f it Per cent age A m ountunt i l i ti s s ued a f i nal fee aw ar d, as d is c u s s e d b e lo w . 12 Second, as di s cus s ed above , W y eth depos i t ed $200 m ill io n in to th e F u n d A L e g a l F e e s E sc ro w A c c o u n t p u rsu a n t to t he Set t l ement A g reem ent
. T hatacc ountw as t he means of p ay i ng C l ass C ou nsel for services rel at ed to the n on -m a trix b e n e f its

. T hi r d, al s o pur s uantt o t he Set t l ementA gr eement , $229 m i l l i on w as t r ans ferr ed fr om Fund B i nt o an accountknow n as t he “F un d B L egal Fees E scr ow A ccou nt” t o co m pen sat e C l ass C o u n s e l w h o h e lp e d to c re a te th e m a tr ix b e n e f its

. Four t h and fi nal l y , t he Seventh A m endmentauthor i zed th e C o u rt to a w a rd a “ C o m m o n B e n e f it P e rc e n ta g e A m o u n t,” i

. e. , “comm on benef

i tfee s t o att orney s forpr ofes s i onal s ervi ces

. . . fo u n d b ythe C o u rtto b e o f ‘c o m m o n b en ef it ’ t o C ateg o ry O n e C las s M e m b e rs.” (A p p . a t 1 1 8 8 2 .) T h o se c o m m o n b e n e f it fees w ou l d b e d ra w n d i rect l yfrom the S up plem ental C l ass Set t l ementFund, an d n o ta s epar at e l egal fee s acc ountt hat corr el at ed t o t he fund. W her e a C at egoryO ne C l as s M ember 12O t herw i s e, t he aw ar d w as t o be deduc t ed fr om the 13 b en ef itd u e to th e C ateg o ryO n e C lass M em b er. 13 w as r epr es ent ed by an att orney , t he comm on benef i t aw ar d w as t o b e ded ucted from t he att orney ’s fees. 13
T o s um m ar i ze, then, the C our tw as author i zed t o pay Cl a s s C o u n s e l f

r o m f o u rd i s t i n c t“ p o t s ” o f

m o n e y : t h e MDL F e e a n d C o st A c c o u n t, th e F u n d A L e g a l F e e s E sc ro w A c c o u n t, t he Fund B L egal Fees E s cr ow A ccount , and the Suppl ement al C las s S e ttl e m e n t F u n d . T h e f irst p o t w a s e sta b lish e d to c o m p e n sa te C las s C o u n se l f o r se rv ice s, su c h a s its e f f o rts in o b tain in g a n d sto rin g d isc o v e ry , p e rf o rm e d f o r th e b e n e f

it o f a ll cl as s m ember s , i ncl udi ng t hos e w ho w er e compens at ed out s i de t he cont extof the Set t l ementA gr eementbeca us e, forexampl e, th e ysu f f e re d f ro m P P H , o p ted o u t o f

th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t, orpar t i ci pat ed i n coor di nat ed s t at e l i t i gat i on. E ach of the other p o ts c o rre sp o n d e d to a p a rticu lar f u n d e sta b lish e d p u rsu a n t to the S ett lem en t A g ree m en t an d w as ev iden tl y inten d ed to rew ard c o u n se l f

o r c re a tin g th e p a rticu lar b e n e f its th a t cla im a n ts recei ved from t hat fund

. C olle c tiv e ly , w e w i l l refert o these l at t ert hr ee pot s as t he “Sett l ementA ccount s . ”

1

. Int eri m Fee A w ard I n t he s pr i ng of 2001, t he D istr i ctC our tes t abl i s hed p roc ed u res that w o u ld g o v ern it s co n side rati o n o f th e f ee aw ard du e t o C l ass C ou nsel

. A s an i nit i al st ep, i trequi red al l C l ass C ouns el t o s ubm i tt i m e and e xpens e r e cor ds t o a court
- appoi nt ed audi t orand t o a l aw y erdes i gnat ed as Pl ai nt i ffs ’ L i ai s onT he l odes t arval ue i s cal cul at ed by“mul t i pl [y i ng] the 14 n u m b e ro f

h o u r s c l a s s c o u n s e l w o r k e d o n a c a s e b y a r eas onabl e hour l ybi l l i ng r at e fors uch s ervi ces . ” In re AT&T C or p. , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). 14 C ouns el

. T he audi t or , w ho w as char ged w i t h det erm i ni ng w hi ch i t ems of t i m e and e xpens e metpr evi ous l yes t abl i s hed cr i t er i a for paym ent , r epor t ed thats eventy - t w o l aw fi r m s had per form ed 354, 431. 49 hour s of compensa bl e w or k an d tha ta “l odes t ar v a l ue” o f $1 01 , 07 6, 65 8. 54 w as approp ri at e i n v i ew of their services

. 14
E a c h law f

irm c laim in g to b e C las s C o u n se l th e n h a d to s ubm i tt o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ L i ai s on C ouns el a fee pr es ent at i on, w hi ch w as to cont ai n a l i t anyof i nform at i on r el evantt o t he s ervi ces ren der ed, i ncl udi ng “[a ] s um m aryof the pr ofes s i onal t i m e for w hi ch c o m pens at i on orr ei m bur s ementi s cl ai m ed .

. . ” and “[ v ]erifi ed co p ies o f a ll p erti n en t t im e re co rds w h ich w ere m a in ta in e d c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly

... th ro u g h o u t th is litig a tio n ... . ” (A p p . a t 7 7 3 3 .) T h e se v e n ty -tw o f ir m s th a t p ro v id e d th e ir recor ds t o the a u d i t or fi l ed fe e present at i on s w i t h P l ai nti ffs’ Li a i s o n Cou n s e l , who , o n Fe b ru a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , s u b mi t t e d t o t he C our ta thi r t y - vol um e compendi um cont ai n ing t he fe e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . On t h e s a me d a y , t h o s e s a me s e v e n t y - t wo f i r ms fi l ed a j oi ntpet i t i on foratt orney s ’ fee s i n w hi ch theyr eques t ed a to tal o f a p p ro x im a tely$ 5 6 7 m ill io n f ro m th e f

o u r a v a ilab le f u n d s .V a lo ri d id n o t o b je c t a t th is p o in t. 15 T he i s s ues r egar di ng the contr actat t orney s i nvol ved 16 w h e th e r th e yb ill e d a t ra tes th a t ex c e e d e d th e ir e x p e rie n c e in m a s s to rt litig a tio n a n d th e s o rt o f w o rk th a t th e yp e rf

o rm e d

. 15 T her e w er e ni ne obj ect or s t o t he j oi ntpet i t i on, i ncl udi ng Ri e p e n . Ri e p e n a r g u e d t h a th e s h o u l d n o th a v e t o p a ya n M DL

15 as s es s m ent b eca us e he di d notus e PM C di s covery , and he ar gued that t he re ques t ed cl as s fee w as t oo hi gh, gi ven w hathe v i e we d a s t h e l o w r i s k o f n o n - c o mp e n s a t i o n i n th e c a s e . On M ar ch 4, 2002, t he D i s t r i ctC ourt en ter ed an or derperm i t t i ng t he obj ect or s t o r eques tand, s ubj ectt o courtappr oval , t o t ake lim ited d isc o v e ryre g a rd in g th e p e tit io n . R iep e n p a rticip a ted in s e v e r a l d i s c o v e r y c o n f

e r e n c e s , b u td i d n o ts e e k a n y d i s c o v e r y. O t hero bject or s depos ed PM C l ead c ouns el on s ubj ect s t hat i nc lu d e d t he d et ai l s of t he records subm i t t ed to Plai nti ffs’ L iais o n C o u n se l an d th e c o n trib u tio n s o f c o n tra c t atto rn e y s to t he PM C ’ s eff

or t s . O nce di s covery w as compl et e, the D i s t r i ct 16 C o u rth eld a tw o -da y h ea ri n g o n the p rop ri ety o f th e f ee aw ard s o u g h t in th e p e titio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed on the fe e pet i t i on on O ct ober2, 2002, i n an or derdes i gnat ed as “PT O 2622. ” I n r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , C i v . A c t i o n N o . 9 9

- 2 0 5 9 3 , 2 0 0 2 WL 3 2 1 5 4 1 9 7 (E

. D

. P a. O ct. 3 , 2 0 0 2 ). B as ed on i t s fi ndi ngs t hat( 1) “[t ] he PM C fac ed s i gni fi cantr i s k att he begi nni n g o f t he li ti g at i on t hatt he w or k theydi d w oul d be uns ucce s s ful and uncompensa ted, ” ( 2) “[t ] he di s coverypacka ge cr eat ed byt he PM C ul t i m at el y paved t he w ay for t he cl as s s ett l ementand manyB ecause the t otal am ou nt i n the M D L F ee and C ost 17 A ccountr epr es ent ed 9% of the M D L pl ai nt i ffs ’ r ecove r i es a n d 6 % o f

re c o v e rie s b yc laim a n ts in c o o rd in a ted sta te act i ons , t he C our tdi r ect ed the r efund of one- t hi r d of the a m o u n t s e q u e s te re d f

ro m re c o v e ri e s in th o s e c a s e s . T he i nt er i m fee det erm i nat i on occurr ed bef or e the 18 S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t to th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t. A ccor di ngl y , t her e w as no Suppl ement al C l as s Set t l ement F un d from w hich t o d raw at t orney s’ fees. 16 i ndi vi dual s et t l ement s , ” and ( 3) “the PM C confe r r ed great benef i t s on al l l i t i g an ts i n t he M D L and s t at e- coor di nat ed lit ig a tio n [ a n d ] ... p e rf

o rm e d th e ir d u ties w ith a d m ira b le s k ill , di l i gence , and ef

fi ci ency , ” the C our t aw ar ded C l as s C ouns el 6% of the r ecove r i es bycl ai m ant s w hos e ac t i ons w er e partof the M D L a n d 4 % o f th e re c o v e rie s b y c laim a n ts i n c o o rd in a ted sta te ac ti o n s (th e “ 6 % & 4 % A s s e s s m e n t”). Id

. at*19. T hat 17 ent i t l ed C l as s C ouns el t o a di s t r i but i on of $76, 861, 455 fr om t he M D L F e e a n d C o s t A c c o u n t. A s t o the fees t o be draw n fr om t he S et t l em ent A ccou nts , th e C o u rt f

o u n d it “ p re m a tu re to p e rf o rm a d e f

in iti v e .. . an a ly sis

. . . [bec au se t] her e i s a s i gni fi cantamount of w or k s t i l l t o be done .

. . i n as s i s t i ng the admi ni s t r at i on of the S et t l ement A gr eement
. ” Id

. at*1 1. Itcon cl ud ed, ho w ever, t hat C l ass C ouns el w as ent i t l ed t o a paym ent o f alm o st$77 m i l l i on – $38, 430, 728 fr om t he Fund A l egal fee s es cr ow acc ountand the sa m e a m o u n t f

ro m th e F u n d B leg a l f e e s e sc ro w a c c o u n t. 18 R i epen and ot her obj ect or s appea l ed, butw e di s m i s s ed forl ackByt h a tt i me , t h e Co u r th a d a l r e a d yc o n d u c t e d two 19 p u b lic h e a rin g s o n th e a d ju d ica tio n o f

a f e e a w a rd – o n e in M ay20 05 and on e i n Jun e 20 05

. P ursuantt o those heari ng s, t he C our tor der ed al l couns el w ho w er e cl ai m i ng ent i t l ement t o a fe e aw ard t o sub m i ttheirt i m e and exp ense records, onw ar d fr om J une 30, 2001, foraudi tr evi ew i n acc or dance w i t h t he pr ocedur es t hati thad es t abl i s hed i n t he Spr i ng of 2 0 0 1

. 17 of j ur i s di ct i on, hol di ng t hat PT O 2622 w as nei t hera fi nal or der n o r a c o ll a te ra l o rd e r f

ro m w h ich a n a p p e a l co u ld b e b ro u g h t. D i et D r ugs , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 4 3

.

2. F i na lFee A w ard O n J anuary5, 2007, t he C our ts oughts ugges t i ons re g a rd in g th e p ro c e d u re s a n d tim e tab le it s h o u ld u se in d e ter m in in g a f

in a l f e e a w a rd . It in v ited a n yin ter e ste d p a rtyto s ubm i ta mem or andum on the s ubj ect , and i ts chedul ed a he ar i ng forM ar ch 1, 2007. I n r es pons e, t he P M C fi l ed a c om pendi um 19 of w r i t t en agr eement s among the now ni nety fi r m s thatcl ai m ed e n t i t l e me n tt o c o mmo n b e n e f i tf e e s a n d b e t we e n th o s e f i r ms and a gr oup of l aw y er s t hat came t o be know n as the “ M ajor F i l e r s . ” The M a

j o rF i l e r s c o n s i s to f

mo r e t h a n f

i f t yl a w f i r ms t hatt ogetherr epr es ent ed appr oxi m at el y97% of the dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs , 26, 000 cl ai m ant s w ho w er e compens at ed u n d er the S ev en th A m en d m en t, an d h alf o f a ll class m em b ersN o n e o f t h e Ma j o rF i l e r s w e r e m e m b e r s o f th e P MC 20 and none pe r form ed compens abl e w or k forthe bene fi tof the e n tir e c la s s . A ppel l ant s r efe rt o t he agr eement s as the “M aj orFi l er 21 A gr eement s , ” s o w e do as w el l

. T hats ai d, w e r ecogni ze that t he t erm i s a bi tof a mi s nom erbeca us e the compendi um s ubm i t t ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ncl uded agr eement s among C l as s C ouns el , al ong w i t h agr eement s betw een Cl as s C ouns el a n d th e M a

jo r F ile rs . T hatm onet aryamount r epr es ent s 77. 78% of the amount 22 o ri g in a lly d e p o s ite d in to th e a c c o u n t. 18 w ho r ece i ved m atr i x paym ent s t hr ough M ay31, 2007. N ei t her 20 R ie p e n n o r V a lo ri w a s a m o n g th e M a jo r F ile rs . T ho se agreem ents (the “M aj or Fil er A greem ents ” ) 21 r efl ect ed the s har ed under s t andi ng of C l as s C ouns el and the M a jo r F ilers th a t “th e a m o u n t to b e a w a rd e d in c o m m o n b e n e f it f e e s ... is to b e d e ter m in e d b yth e C o u rt in th e e x e rc ise o f its s ound di s cr et i on . . . . ” ( A pp. at12976- 77. ) S ubj ectt o that u n d erstan d ing , h o w ev er, C lass C o u n sel an d the M a jo r F il ers agr eed t hat C l as s C ouns el w oul d r eques tt he ent i r e $200 mi l l i on o rig in a llyd e p o site d in th e F u n d A L e g a l F e e s E sc ro w A c c o u n t, pl us i nt er es t ; $178, 111, 111 fr om t he Fund B L egal Fees E s cr ow A c c o u n t; a n d 7 % o f th e b e n e f

its p a id u n d e r th e S e v e n th 22 A m e n d m e n t. A d d iti o n a lly , th e y a g re e d th a t it w a s a p p ro p ria te forC l as s C ouns el t o l evya r educe d as s es s m ent– 2% i n fede r al cas es and 1. 33% in st at e ca s es – on r ecove r i es obt ai ned byI n c on t r a s t , r e c ov e r i e s i n the i ni t i a l op t
- ou ta nd PPH 23 cases occurr ed co m plet el you t si de the con t ext of cl ass s et t l ement , beca us e thos e pl ai nt i ffs ei t herchos e t o go w i t hout t he bene fi t s cr eat ed bythe Set t l ementA gr eement( t he i ni t i al opt
- outcl ai m ant s ) orw er e expr es s l ynotcont empl at ed bythe S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t ( th e P P H c la im a n ts ). 19 dow ns t r eam opt
- outcl ai m ant s. T he r at i onal e behi nd the r educt i on, as s t at ed i n t he M aj orFi l erA gr eement s , w as that r ecove r i es i n t he dow ns t r eam opt
- outcas es – as oppos ed t o the i ni t i al opt
- out and PPH cas es – occurr ed i n partbeca us e of the Set t l ementA gr eement , w hi ch had i t s ow n m echani s m s for compensa t i ng at t or ney s . I n t he PM C ’ s w or ds , t he r educt i on 23 “ser ved as a proph y l act i c again st ‘ do ub l e dippi ng ’” byC l ass C ouns el

. ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . , N o. 08- 2 3 8 7 , at25. ) T he M aj or Fi l er s agr eed thatt heyw oul d notobj ectt o t he fe es s o u ghtby C l as s C ouns el , and the part i es r epr es ent ed thatther e w er e no o t h e r“ a g r e e me n t s , p r o mi s e s , o ru n d e r t a k i n g s ” a mo n g t h e m. (A p p . a t 1 3 0 2 3 .) A ft ert he M ar ch 1 hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an o rd e r, in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e p ro c e d u re s it h a d e sta b lish e d to adj udi cat e the i nt er i m fee aw ar d, r equi r i ng tha tt he audi t or s ubm i ta r epor tof the com pens abl e t i m e and expens es cl ai m ed bycouns el , t hatC l as s C ouns el s ubm i t su ppl ement al fee present at i on s t o P l ai nti ffs’ Liai son C ou nsel , and t hat Pl ai nti ffs’ L iais o n C o u n se l f

ile a c o m p e n d iu m o f th e f e e p re se n tatio n s w ith t he C our t
. T he audi t orrep o rt ed t hat , fr om t he i ncept i on of lit ig a tio n , C las s C o u n se l h a d e x p e n d e d 5 5 3 ,0 2 0 .5 3 h o u rs in comm on benef

i tt i m e, ther ebypr oduci ng a l o d est arval ue of20 $156, 849, 257. 24. O n J ul y 16, 2007, Pl ai nt i ffs ’ L i ai s on C ouns el fi l ed the compendi um of fe e pr es ent at i ons and, on behal f of Cl a s s Co u n s e l , a j o i n tf

e e p e t i t i o n t h a tc o mp l i e d wi t h t h e t e r ms to w h ic h C la s s C o u n s e l a n d th e M a jo r F ile rs h a d a g re e d

. A s i tdid in connec t i on w i t h the 2002 j oi ntfee pet i t i on, th e C o u rt a u th o riz e d th o s e w h o o b jec ted to th e p e tit io n to r eques tl i m i t ed di s covery . V al or i m o ved fordi s coveryon A ugus t7, 2007. T he S peci al M as t erconcl uded thatthe mot i on w a s u n ti m elyan d , b ec au se itd id n o t adh ere to the C o u rt ’s i ns t ruct i on t hatany s uch m ot i on s et for th a conci s e s t at ementof t he need and l egal b asi s for di scovery , defici ent. N evertheles s, t he C our tperm i t t ed V al or i to depos e the PM C ’ s l ead c ouns el r egar di ng t he t erm s and meani ng of the compendi um of agr eement s t hatl ead c ouns el had s ubm i t t ed t o the C our tand w hetheranys i de agr eement s exi s t e d betw een Cl as s C ouns el and th e M a jo r F ile rs . T h ereaft er , V al or i fi l ed an obj ect i on t o the j oi ntfee pet i t i on. T he tw o pr i m ary ar gum ent s i n t he obj ect i on w er e that t he requ est ed aw ard w as t oo high bec ause t here w as a l ow ri sk of non- paym ent , gi ven the exi s tenc e of the l egal fee s es cr ow acc ount s , and thatt he r eques t ed aw ar d di d notal l ocat e the bur den o f

p a yme n tp r o p o r t i onal l ybetw een the i ni t i al opt
- outand PPH cl ai m ant s, on one hand, and the dow ns t r eam opt
- out cl ai m ant s , on t he ot her , acc or di ng t o t he benef i t s t hateac h gr oup r ece i ved. R i epen a l s o obj ect ed to the j oi ntfee pet i t i on, r enew i ng t he ar gum ent s t hathe had made i n resp o ns e t o t he 2 0 0 2 f e e p e titio n .A s di s cus s ed i n m or e det ai l bel ow , thi s m ethod r equi r es 24 t he C our tt o det erm i ne the over al l val ue of the comm on fund a n d th e n c a lcu late a n a p p ro p ria te p e rc e n tag e o f th a t f u n d to aw ard i n att orney s’ fees based o n a seri es of reasonab l eness f a c to rs th a t h a v e b e e n d e v e lo p e d th ro u g h o u r j u ri s p ru d e n c e . 21 O n A pr i l 8, 2008, t he D i s t r i ct C our t rul ed on the pet i t i on, i n an or derdes i gnat ed as “P T O 7763( A )

. ” I n r e D i et

D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 5 5 3 F

. S u p p . 2 d 4 4 2 (E

. D

. P a. 20 0 8 ). It aw ar ded C l as s C ouns el a t ot al amount of appr oxi m at el y$567 m i l l i on, i ncl udi ng the appr oxi m at el y$154 m i ll ion that cons t i tut ed the i nt er i m fee aw ar d, br oken dow n i n t he fol l ow i ng m an n er. First , the C o u rtap p lie d the p erc en tage -of -reco v ery m ethod t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e fee a w ar d t o be al l ocat ed

24 f ro m th e S e ttle m e n t A c c o u n ts
. Id

. at467- 85. I n l i ght o f the rea sonabl enes s fac t or s thatw e art i cul at ed i n I n r e Pr u d e n t i al I ns . C o. A m . Sal es P r act i ce Li t ig. A gai ns tA gent A ct i ons , 148 F. 3d 2 8 3 (3d C i r . 1998) , and G unt erv. R i dgew ood E ner gy C or p. , 2 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 9 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ), itco n clud ed that an aw ard equal i ng 6. 75% of the r ecove r i es u n d erthe Set t l ement A g re e m e n t – w h ich th e C o u rt v a lu e d a t $ 6 .4 4 b ill io n –w a s f a ir a n d a p p ro p ri a te
. D i et

D r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at 4 8 5

. T h e C o u rt th e n p e rf o rm e d a lo d e s ta r c ro s s -c h e c k “ to g a u g e w h e th e r th e ... aw ard cre at[e d ] a w ind fa ll ” fo r the pe ti ti o n e rs . Id

. B yt he C our t ’ s cal cul at i on, t he aw ar d r epr es ent ed a l odes t arm ul t i pl i er o f 2 .6

. Id

. a t 4 8 6

. W h i l e i t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i t s mul t i p l i er w as a rtific iallylo w , g iv e n th a t th e a u d ito r’s re p o r t d id n o t se p a ra te t he t i m e s pent on t he Set t l ement A gr eement fr om t i m e s pentonR ecal l t hat the C ou rtw as aut ho ri zed to payC l ass 25 C ouns el fr om fourpot s of m oney , thr ee of w hi ch corr es ponded t o par t i cul arfunds es t abl i s hed pur s uantt o t he Set t l ementA gr eementand one of w hi ch – the M D L Fee and C os tA ccount– w as des i gned t o compensa t e C l as s C ouns el forthe bene fi t s t hatt heybes t ow ed on al l pl ai nt i ffs , i ncl udi ng t hos e w ho r ecove r ed out s i de the cont extof the Set t l ement A g re e m e n t. B y“ su p e r-m e g a -f

u n d c a se s,” th e C o u rt w a s re f e rrin g to 26 “ca s es w i t h val uat i ons of l ar gerthan one bi l l i on dol l ar s . ” I d. at487. 22 t he M D L , i tfel tconfi dentthatthe true mul t i pl i er– w hat ever

25 i tw as – w as notexce s s i ve fora “s uper - m ega f und cas e” s uch as t hi s one. Id

. a t 4 8 7

.

26 Second, t he C our tdet erm i n ed h ow t o apport i on t he 6. 75% aw ar d fr om among t he Set t l ementA ccount s . Fr om the Fund A L egal Fees E s cr ow A ccount , i taw ar ded C l as s C ouns el $161, 569, 272, w hi ch, w hen adde d t o i t s i nt er i m di s t r i but i on of $38, 430, 728, equal ed $200, 000, 000 – t he amountthatw as o r i g i n a lly d e p o s ite d in to th a t a c c o u n t. Id

. a t 4 8 7

. Fr o m t he Fund B L egal Fees E s c r o w A c c o u n t , i t a war d ed $124, 633, 410. 60, w hi ch, w hen adde d t o i t s i nt er i m di s t r i but i on of $38, 430, 728, equal ed $163, 064, 138. 6 0 , w hi ch r epr es ent ed 6 .3 9 % o f

F u n d B ’s o ri g in a l $ 2 .5 5 b ill i o n v a lu e . Id

. at488. Fi ndi ng no r eas on w hyt he fe e aw ar d p ertaini ng t o r ecove r i es undert he Seventh A m endments houl d be mat er i al l ydi ffe r entR eca l l t hatC l as s C ouns el w as t o be compens at ed fr om 27 th e F u n d B L e g a l F e e s E sc ro w A c c o u n t f o r th e m a trix benef i t s es t abl i s hed pur s uantt o t he Set t l ementA gr eementand f ro m th e S u p p lem e n tal C las s S e ttl e m e n t F u n d f o r b e n e f its e s ta b lis h e d p u rs u a n t to th e S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t. In sum m ary , t hen , the D i stri ctC ou rtaw arded C l ass 28 C ouns el $200 m i l l i on fr om the Fund A L egal Fees E s cr ow A ccount( $38, 430, 728 i n i t s i nt er i m di s t r i but i on and $161, 569, 272 i n i t s fi nal aw ar d) , $163, 064, 138. 60 fr om the F u n d B L e g a l F e e s E sc ro w A c c o u n t ($ 3 8 ,4 3 0 ,7 2 8 in its in te ri m d is tr ib u tio n a n d $ 1 2 4 ,6 3 3 ,4 1 0 .6 0 in its f in a l a w a rd ), $71, 447, 638. 10 fr om the Suppl ement al C l as s Set t l ementFund 23 fr om t hatr el at ed t o m atr i x benef i t s , the C our tal s o aw ar ded 27 C l as s C o uns el 6. 4% of the Suppl ement al C l as s Set t l ementFund. Id

. T h a t d is tr ib u tio n a m o u n te d t o $ 7 1 , 4 4 7 ,6 3 8 .1 0

. Id

. T hi r d, t he C our tdet erm i ned thatt he j us t i fi cat ions that su p p o rte d th e 6 % & 4 % A s se ss m e n t in 2 0 0 2 still ap p lied w ith equal for ce, and i tappr oved C l as s C ouns el ’ s pr opos ed r educt i on in th e a ss e ss m e n t – to 2 % in f e d e ra l ca se s a n d 1 .3 3 % in sta te cas es – for dow ns t r eam opt
- out cl ai m ant s bas ed on the l ogi c that t hos e cl ai m ant s had i ncurr ed val ue fr o m the Set t l ement A g ree m en t th at i n it ial o p t- o u t an d P P H claim an ts did n o t i n cu r, and C l as s C ouns el w as r ew ar ded for cr eat i ng t hatval ue fr om t he F u n d A L e g a l F e e s E s c ro w A c c o u n t. S e e id

. at 491 -96

. It updat ed the aw ar d fr om t he M D L Fee and CostA ccount acc or di ngl y , addi n g $ 5 6, 300, 000 t o the i nt er i m di s t r i but i on of $76, 861, 455 fora t ot al aw ar d of $133, 161, 455. Id

. a t 4 9 6

. 28( al l i n i t s fi nal aw ar d) , and $133, 161, 455 fr om the M D L Fee and C os tA ccount( $76, 861, 455 i n i t s i nt er i m di s t r i but i on and $53, 000, 000 i n i t s fi nal aw ar d) , fora t ot al fee aw ar d of $567, 673, 231. 70, w hi ch w e have appr oxi m at ed t o $567 m illio n f o r p u rp o s e s o f

d is c u s s io n . R iep e n f iled a n a p p e a l o n h is o w n b e h a lf a n d o n b e h a lf 29 of tw o of hi s cl i ent s i n t he di etdrug l i t i gat i on, R andyH ague a n d J a n a L . H a rr is

. 24 T he D i s t r i ct C our tt hen r eques t ed s ubm i s s i ons r egar di ng ho w t o refun d the m on ey l eftov er i n the M D L F ee and C ost A ccount an d t he funds es t abl i s hed pur s uantt o t he Set t l ement A g re e m e n t, a n d it i n stru c ted P lain tiff s’ L iais o n C o u n se l to subm i ta plan regar ding the al l ocati on of the aw ard am on g C l ass C ouns el

. O n J ul y21, 2008, t he C our tcompl et ed adj udi cat i on of t he fe e aw ar d. PT O 7896 w r apped up t he re m ai ni ng r efund a nd al l ocat i on i s s ues , and PT O 7897 cert i fi ed as fi nal P T O s 2622, 7 7 6 3 (A ), a n d 7 8 9 6

. C

. Appeal R i epen f i l ed a noti ce o f appe al fr om PT O 2622, the i nt er i m fee aw ar d, and fr om PT O 7763( A ) , t he fi nal fee aw ar d, o n M a y6 , 2 0 0 8

. Val o r i f i l e d a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l f r o m PTO 29 7763( A ) on M ay 8, 2008. W e have cons ol i dat ed the appe al s for d is p o s itio n .T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n o v e r th is 30 m u lt idistri ct l it igation p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 1 3 3 2 (a), 1 4 0 7 . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , d e sp ite th e f a c t th a t A p p e llan ts to o k a n a p p e a l f ro m P T O 7 7 6 3 (A ), in whi c h t h e Cou r tru l e d o n th e j o i n tf e e p e t i t i o n , i n s t e a d o f

PTO 7897, i n w hi ch the C our tent er ed PT O s 2622, 7763( A ) , and 7 8 9 6 a s f in a l ju d g m e n ts . U n d e r F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 2 ), a no t i ce of app eal fi l ed af

t er the co urtann ou nces a f i nal d e c isio n o r o rd e r, b u t b e f o re it en ter s f

in a l ju d g m e n t, “is t r eat ed as fi l ed on the dat e of a nd aft erthe entr y . ” See a l so F i rs Ti erMor t

gage C o. v. I

nves t ors Mor t

gage C o. , 49 8 U. S. 269, 276 ( 1991) ( R ul e 4( a) ( 2) perm i t s a pr ematur e not i ce of a p p e a l f ro m a f in a l d e c is io n , b u t n o t a n in te rl o c u to ry o n e .). W hi l e PT O 7763( A ) l eftopen i s s ues of al l ocat i on and redi stri bu t i on , i tbest ow ed a d efi nit i ve aw ard on C l ass C o u n s e l. I t is th u s a f

in a l d e c is io n u n d e r o u r j u ri s p ru d e n c e . See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Aut o. W

orker s Local259 Soc. Sec. D ept
. v. Metro A uto C tr. , 50 1 F

. 3d 28 3, 28 6 (3d C i r. 20 07 ) ( “B ecause t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der

. . . r educe d t he fe e aw ar d t o a d ef init e a m o u n t, itw as a fin al de cisi o n . ”); I nt er f ai th C m t y. O r g. v. H oneywel lI

nt er n. , I nc. , 4 2 6 F

. 3 d 6 9 4 , 7 0 1 (3d C ir

. 2005) ( H oneyw el l t i m el yappea l ed “f[i ndi ng] thatI C O w as en ti tl ed to $ 4 , 5 3 0 , 3 2 7

. 0 0 in [ att o rne y s’] fee s”). 25 I I . D i s cus s i on 30 “ [ A ] th o ro u g h ju d icia l re v iew o f f e e a p p lica tio n s is r equi r ed i n al l cl as s act i on s ett l ement s . ” I n r e G en’ lMot

s . C or p. P i ck- up Truc k Fuel

Tank P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 55 F. 3d 768, 819 ( 3d C i r . 1995)

. W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fee26 det erm i nat i on forabus e o f di s cr et i on, “w hi ch ca n occuri f the j ud g e f a i l s t o a p p l yt h e p r o p e rp r o c e d u r e s i n ma k i n g the d eterm ination , o r ba ses a n aw ard u p o n fin d ing s o f fa ct th at are cl ear l yerr oneous . ” I

n r e C endant

C or p. PR I D E S Li t ig. , 2 43 F. 3d 722, 727 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and cit at i ons om i t t ed)

. T o ens ur e thatw e w i ll h ave a s uffi ci entbas i s for re v iew , w e re q u ire d istric t co u rts to se t f o rth th e re a so n in g in s u p p o rt o f

a f e e a w a rd

. I

n r e Ri t e Ai d Cor

p . S e c . Li t ig. , 396 F. 3d 294, 3 0 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A p p e llan ts o b

jec t to th re e a sp e c ts of th e f e e a w a rd in th is cas e: t he lev el of tr ans par encyi nher enti n t he pr oces s thatl ed t o t he aw ar d, t he s i ze of t he aw ar d der i ved fr om t he Set t l ement A c c o u n ts, a n d th e a p p lica b ili tyo f th e M D L a ss e ss m e n ts to th e ir in d iv id u a l c a s e s . W e a d d re s s e a c h c h a lle n g e in tu rn . A

. Trans

par ency of

the Proce edi ngs R i epen c l ai m s thatthe fe e aw ar d w as the pr oductof a fl aw ed pr oces s i n w hi ch t he D i s t r i ct C our tacc ept ed s um m ar i es fr om t he audi t orand Pl ai nt i ffs ’ L i ai s on C ouns el ins t ead of re q u irin g th e p u b lic f

ili n g o f a c tu a l ti m e a n d e x p e n se re p o rts fro m C lass C o u n sel. A cc o rdin g to R iepe n , th e p roc ed u re adopt ed byt he D ist ri ctC our tvi ol at es t he pr i nci pl es of t r ans par encyes pous ed byt he U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the F i fth C i r cui ti n I

n r e High Su l

f urCont e nt

G as ol i ne Pr od

s. Li ab. L it ig. , 517 F. 3d 220 ( 5th C i r . 2008)

. I n High Sul f ur , the l ead pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el i n a cl as s act i on p ersu ad ed the di s t r i ct cour t , dur i ng an ex par t e h ea ri n g and w i t houtthe bene fi tof su p p o rt in g d a ta , to d ivide a lum p su m att o rne y s’ fe e a w ard a m o n g m o re th a n s ix d o z e n p la in tif f s ’ l a w y e rs . Id

. a t2 2 3

. At27 that sam e h ea ri n g , the C o u rt“a cc ep ted [ l] ea d [c ]ou n sel’s p ro p o se d o rd e r se a lin g th e in d iv id u a l aw a rd s; p re v e n tin g a ll cou nsel from co m m un i cat i ng w i t h an y on e abo ut the aw ards; r equi r i ng r el eas es fr om couns el w ho ac cept ed paym ent ; and lim itin g its o w n s c o p e o f re v ie w o f o b je c tio n s to th e a llo c a tio n .” Id

. at223- 24. B eca use “the r ecor d [w as ] ber eftof fa ctual i nform at i on es s ent i al t o . . . appel l at e r evi ew , ” and be caus e the seal i ng of the recor d “p rot ect [ed] no l egit i m at e pri vacyi nter est t hatw oul d over come t he publ i c’ s r i ghtt o be i nform ed, ” the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls v a c a te d th e a w a rd

. Id

. at229- 30. T her e ar e t w o ans w er s t o R i epen’ s r el i ance on High Sul f ur . Fi r s t , t hi s cas e i s s o fac tual l ydi s t i nctfr om t hatone t hat compar i ng t he tw o i s frui t l es s . Farfr om adj udi cat i ng the fe e aw ard i n an ex par t e hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ol i ci t ed s ubm i s s i ons fr om al l i nt er es t ed par t i es conce r ni ng “w hats t eps and proced ures the co urtshou l d im plem ent, a s w el l as a s ugges t ed t i m et abl e, i n det erm i ni ng anyfi nal orot heraw ar ds of att o rne y s’ fe es,” an d it h eld three p u b li c h ea ri n g s o n the m att er. (A p p . at 12 6 2 4

. ) M or eover , dur i ng adj ud icati on of both t he i nt er i m and fi nal fee aw ar ds , t he C our tperm i t t ed obj ect i ons and al l ow ed obj ect or s t o t ake l i m i t ed di s covery , t hough i t need not h av e gra n ted an y d isco v ery at a ll. See Prude nt i al , 148 F. 3d at 338, 342 ( r ecogni zi ng that“di s coveryi n connec t ion w i t h fee m ot i ons s houl d r ar el ybe perm i t t ed, ” and t hat“w hethert o gr ant d isc o v e ry i s c o m m itt e d to th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e [ d istric t] cour t ” ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed)). Fi nal l y , t he C o u rt re q u ire d th e a u d ito r a n d P lain tiff s’ L iais o n C o u n se l to subm i tvo l um es of d at a refl ect i ng t he ti m e and m on eyt hat C l ass C o u n sel s p e n t on the d ietd rug s li ti g ati o n – d ata tha t th e C o u rtR i epen a l s o cl ai m s thatthe compendi um of fe e 31 pr es ent at i ons pr epar ed byPl ai nt i ffs ’ L i ai s on C ouns el w as m i s s i ng fr om t he publ i c r ecor d w hen he w entt o t he cour t hous e t o exami ne i t , and he que s t i ons w hetherthe com pen dium con t ai ned “t he d et ai l of ti m e and exp ense r ecor ds r equi r ed bybas i c j udi ci al s t andar ds of tr ans par ency . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . , N o. 08- 2363, at29. ) Suffi ce i tt o s aythat t he compendi um s i ncl uded i n t he appe l l at e r ecor d ar e not l acki ng i n det ai l

. R i epen a l s o ar gues thatthe PM C ’ s deci s i on n o t to f ile th e c o m p e n d iu m e lec tro n ica lly“ in a n d o f itse lf cr eat es a tr ans par encypr obl em, ” bec aus e the pape r - fi l i ng m e th o d d e te rr e d p e o p le f ro m a c c e s s in g th e d o c u m e n ts
. (A p p e llan t’s B r., N o . 0 8 -2 3 6 3 , at 2 8 .) T h a t co n ten tio n is underm i ned byt he fa ctthatthe compendi um w as acc es s ed, a n d u se d a s th e b a sis f

o r d isc o v e ryre q u e sts , b yo b jec to rs to th e jo in t f

e e p e titio n . 28 puton t he publ i c r ecor d and us ed t o s uppor tthe fe e aw ar d t hat i tul t i m at el ygr ant ed. 31 S e c o n d , High Su l

f ur asid e, th e f

ee p roc ee d ing s w ere a m p lytra n sp a re n t u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n t. In d e e d , itis d if f icu lt t o d isc e rn w h a t th e D istric t C o u rt r e a so n a b lyc o u ld h a v e d o n e to i ncr eas e the l evel of tr ans par encyas s oci at ed w i t h the fe e aw ar d. R i epen s ugges t s t hatt he C our ts houl d have c ons i der e da n d m ade p u b l i c Cl a s s Cou n s e l ’ s i n d i v i d u a l b i l l i n g r e c o r d s , b u tw e have hel d t hatcour t s need notal w ay s engage i n t hatt i m e- cons um i ng p r o c e s s . S e e R ite A id , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 3 0 6 -0 7 (“ [ D ]istric t co u rts m ay r el y on s um m ar i es s ubm i t t ed bythe att orney s and nee d not r evi ew ac tual bi l l i ng r ecor ds

. ” ( ci t i ng P r udent i al , 148 F. 3d atI n a r el at ed tr ans par encyar gum ent , R i epen c ont ends 32 t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fi nal i zi ng the aw ar d w i t houtr equi r i ng C l as s C ouns el t o s peci fyhow m any h o u rs a n d w h ich e x p e n se s w e re re late d to e a c h a sp e c t o f th e ir comm on benef

i tw or k. Speci fi cal l y , R i epen c ont ends thatby perm i t t i ng C l as s C ouns el t o comm i ngl e thei rr ecor ds , the C our tendor s ed a f

ee a l l ocat i on thatvi ol at ed the Set t l ement A gr eementand the mandat es of B oeing C o. v. V an G em ert , 444 U

. S. 472 ( 1980)

. Sect i on V I I

. E

. 1 of the Set t l ement A gr eementauthor i zes the D i s t r i ctC our tt o aw ar d fee s for s ervi ces r el at ed t o Fund A fr om the Fund A E s cr ow A ccount and pr ovi des t hat“[a ] t t orney s ’ fee s r el at i ng t o Fund B s hal l be p a id f ro m F u n d B .” (A p p . a t 6 3 3 .) H ow ever , the purpos e of that sec ti o n is t o cre ate the m ec h an ism s b yw h ich th e C o u rt co u ld aw ard att o rne yfe es; i t do es n o t m an d ate h o w – o r, in d e e d , w h e th e r – c o u n se l m u st s u b m it th e ir tim e re c o rd s in or dert o getpai d. R i epen’ s r el i ance on B oei ng is s im ilarly m i spl aced. Th atcase r equi r es court s aw ar di ng at t orney s ’ fee s to e n su re th a t “th e b e n e f its o f c las s re c o v e ry ” a re “ tra c e d w ith s om e ac cur acy . ” I

d. at480- 81 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed). H ow ever, the “b enef i t ” t o w hich i trefer s – and w hi ch mustbe “tr ace d w i t h s om e ac cur acy ” – i s the 29 342) )

. I n l ar ge ca s es , es peci al l yone of pr odi gi ous pr opor t i ons l i ke thi s , r el i ance on s um m ar i es i s cert ai nl yw i t hi n the di s cr et i on of t he di s t r i ctcour t
. A l s o, as the High Su l f ur C our tr ecogni zed, t r ans par ent fee pr ocee di ngs ar e neces s ary , i n par t , s o thatw e ca n engage i n m eani ngful appel la t e r evi ew of the r es ul t i ng aw ar d. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr ocedur es i n thi s cas e have been mor e than adequa t e t o t hatend. 32m onet aryr el i ef thatt he pl ai nt i ffs r ecove r , notthe w or k t hat t he att or ney s do t o s ecur e i t
. I ti s true that , i n addi t i on t o t he “bene fi t s of cl as s r ecove r y , ” B oei ng a d d re ss e s th e m a n n e r in w hi ch the cos t s of att orney s ’ fee s m us tbe s hi ft ed t o t he b e n e f ic ia ri e s . See i d. B utR i epen’ s tr ans par encyar gum ent does noti m pl i cat e thatas pectof B oei ng . M or eover , forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed i nfr a , w e bel i eve thatthe D i s t r i ctC our thas s at i s fi ed the cos t
- s hi ft i ng r equi r ement s s etfor t h bythe B oei ng C o u rt
. 30 B

. Siz e of the S et t l em ent Aw ard A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt he port i on of the fe e aw ar ded fr om t he Set t l ementA ccount s , m or e than $434 mi l l i on i n al l , w as e x c e ss iv e . R ie p e n c laim s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rly cal cul at ed the aw ar d as a per cent age of t he r ecove r y , i ns t ead of us i ng t he l odes t arm ethod, and R i epen a nd V al or i bot h cont end t hatt he aw ar d i s bas ed on an e r r on eo u s appl i cat i on of the re a s o n a b le n e s s f

a c to rs w e h a v e p re v io u s ly ar tic u la te d

. 1

. Method of

C al culat i on “A t t or ney s’ fe es ar e typi cal l yas s es s ed thr ough the p e rc e n ta g e -o f-rec o v erym etho do r th rou g h th e lo d e s ta r m e th o d .” I n r e AT &T C or p. , 455 F. 3d 160, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he f

o rm er “appl i es a ce r t ai n per cent age t o t he [s et t l ement ] fund. ” I

d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he l att er“mul t i pl i es t h e n u m b e r o f

h o u r s c l a s s c o u n s e l w o r k e d o n a c a s e b y aA ft era courtdet erm i nes the l odes t aramount , i tm ay 33 i ncr eas e ordecr eas e thatamount byappl y i ng a l odes t ar m u lti p lier. “ T h e m u lti p lier is a d e v ice th a t atte m p ts to acc ountforthe cont i ngentnatur e orr i s k i nvol ved i n a par t i cul arcas e and the qual i t yof the att orney s ’ w or k. ” R ite A id , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 3 0 5 -0 6

. 31 re a s o n a b le h o u rl yb illin g ra te f o r s u c h s e rv ic e s .” I

d. ( ci t at i on 33 o m itte d ). R i epen a r gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s e mpl o yme n to f the per cent age- of- r ecove r ym ethod w as err oneous beca us e, w hen a cas e i nvol ves fee s hi ft i ng as does t hi s one, t he l odes t arm ethod s h o u l d b e u s e d

. Ri e p e n ’ s c o n t e n t i o n i s mi s g u i d e d f o rtwo re a so n s. F irst, n o “ f

e e sh if tin g ,” a s th a t term is tra d iti o n a lly us ed, o cc u rr ed i n t hi s cas e. Fee s hi ft i ng – an exc ept i on t o the s o - c a l l e d “ Am e r i c a n Ru l e , ” wh e r e b yp a r t i e s p a yth e i ro wn a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s – o c c u rs w h e n o n e p a rty is co m p e lled b ysta tu te to b e a r th e o p p o s in g p a rt y ’s f e e s . A l yes ka P i pel i ne Svc. C o. v. W ild ern ess S o c’y , 4 2 1 U .S . 2 4 0 , 2 6 9 -7 0 (1 9 7 5 ). It is tru e th a t, u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n t, th e lo d e sta r m e th o d is o f ten a p p lied in c a s e s w h e re f

e e -s h if tin g s ta tu te s o p e ra te
. P r udent i al , 148 F. 3d a t 3 3 3 . B u t th e r e is n o su c h sta tu te a t w o rk h e re . W y e th vol unt ar i l yunder t ook t he pro ces s of compensa t i ng oppos i ng c o un sel , byest abli shi ng and fun ding vari ou s escr ow accou nts dedi cat ed t o t he paym entof cl ai m ant s ’ l egal cos t s . Second, even i f thi s cas e could be s ai d t o i nvol ve fe e s hi ft i ng, R i epen does not compl ai n about fee s hi ft i ng at al l

. H i s pr obl em i s not t hatt he bur den of at t orney s ’ fee s w as i m pr oper l y“s hi ft ed” f r om t he pl ai nt i ffs t o W y eth. R ather , R i epen i s appea l i ng t he fe e32 aw ar d t o chal l enge the al loc at i on of fe es among t he var i ous a tto rn e y s w h o re p re s e n te d p la in tif f s ’ i n te re s ts
. C o n tra ryto R iep e n ’s c h a r a c te riz a tio n , this c a se f a lls under t he comm on fund doctr i ne, a s econd exce pt i on to t he A m er i can Rul e. T hat “doctr i ne ‘ pr ovi des t hata pr i vat e pl ai nt i ff, orpl ai nt i ff’ s at t or ney , w hos e eff or t s cr eat e, di s cover , i ncr eas e, orpr es erve a fund t o w hi ch other s al s o have a cl ai m , i s ent i t l ed t o r e c o v e rf

r o m t h e f

u n d t h e c o s t s o f

h i s l i t i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i ng at t or ney s ’ fee s . ’ ” I

n r e C endant

C or p. Sec. Li t ig. , 404 F. 3d 173, 187 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng G

. M

. Truc ks , 5 5 F

. 3 d at 82 0 n . 3 9 ). W hen ca l cul at i ng at t orney s ’ fee s i n s uch ca s es , t he per cent ageo f -r e c o v e ry m e th o d is g e n e ra lly f a v o re d

. P r udent i al , 148 F. 3d a t 3 3 3 ; s ee al

s o The M

anual f or C om plex L it igat i on § 14. 121 ( 4t h ed. 2004) ( rep o rt ing t hat“the vas tm aj or i t yof court s of appea l s now perm i tordi r ectdi s t r i ctcour t s t o us e the per cent age m e th o d in c o m m o n -f

u n d c a s e s ” ). It w as en ti rely ap p rop ri ate fo r the D istri ct C o u rtto ad h ere to the g en era l con v en ti o n an d ap p ly the p erc en tage -of -reco v ery m etho d in this ca se. T h e l o d estar m etho d is “d esig n ed to rew ard couns el forunder t aki ng so ciall ybenef i ci al l i t i gat i on i n cas es w her e the ex pect ed r el i ef ha s a s m al l enough monet aryval ue th a t a p e rc e n tag e -of-re c o v e rym e th o d w o u ld p ro v id e in a d e q u a te compensa t i on. ” P r udent i al , 14 8 F. 3d at33 3. R i epen con t end s, how ever , t hatt he per cent age- of- r ecove r y m ethod r es ul t ed i n t oo m uch , a s o p p osed to “i nad equ at e, ” com pen sat i on for C l ass C ou nsel i n thi s case. M oreove r, the financial st akes i n this case w e re e n o rm o u s, a n d th e law y e rs in v o lv e d w e re p rim a rily co n ce rne d w ith o b tai n ing reli ef fo r th ei rcl i ents an d the m em b ers of the cl as s , notw it h servi ng t he publ i c i nt er es t
. T hus , t heT he G unt er/ P ru d e n tia l fa ctors a re n o t exh au sti v e. “In 34 re v iew in g a n a tto rn e y s’ f e e a w a rd in a c las s a c tio n se ttl e m e n t, a d i s t r i c tc o u r ts h o u l d c o n s i d e r[ t h o s e ] f a c t o r s . . . , a n d a n y 33 D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly a p p lied th e m e th o d b e tter d e sig n e d to
“ re w a rd [ ] c o u n s e l f

o r s u c c e s s a n d p e n a liz e [ ] i t f o r f a ilu re .” G

. M

. Truc ks , 55 F. 3d at821.

2

. P e rc e n ta g e -o

f-R e c o v e ry A n a lys is I n det erm i ni ng w hat cons t i tut es a r eas onabl e per cent age f e e a wa r d , a d i s t r i c t c o u r t mu s t c o n s i d e r t h e t e n f a c t o r s t h a twe i dent i fi ed i n G unt er , 223 F. 3d 190, and Pr u d e n t i al , 148 F. 3d 283. T hey ar e: ( 1) t he s i ze of t he fund cr eat ed and the number of bene fi ci ar i es , ( 2) the pr es ence orabs ence of s ubs t ant i al o b j e c t i o n s b yme mb e r s o f t he c l a s s t o th e s e t t l e me n tt e r ms and/ orfee s r eques t ed bycouns el , ( 3) t he s ki l l and ef fi ci encyof t he att or ney s invol ved, ( 4) t he compl exi t yand dur at i on of the l i t i g a t i o n , ( 5 ) t he r i s k o f n o n p a yme n t , ( 6 ) th e a mo u n to f t i me d e v o ted to th e c a se b yp lain tif f s ’ c o u n se l, (7 ) th e a w a rd s in s im ila r c a s e s , G unt er , 2 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 9 5 n .1 ; P r udent i al , 148 F. 3d 336- 40, (8) the val ue of be nefi t s at t r i but abl e t o the ef for t s of cl as s couns el r el at i ve t o t he ef fo rt s of othergr oups , s uch as governm entagenc i es co n duct i ng i nves t i gat i ons , ( 9) t he percentage fee t hat w ou l d h ave b een n ego t i at ed h a d the case b e e n s u b j e c tt o a p r i v a t e c o n t i n g e n tf e e a r r a n g e me n ta tth e t i me couns el w as r et ai ned, and ( 10) anyi nnovat i ve t erm s of s e ttle m e n t, P r udent i al , 1 4 8 F .3 d a t 3 3 8 -4 0 ; see al so A T &T, 455 F. 3d at165. 34ot herfac t or s t hatar e us eful and r el evantw i t h r es pectt o t he par t i cul arfac t s of the ca s e. ” A T &T, 455 F. 3d at166. A ddi t i onal l y , V al or i ar gues thatthe C our tcoul d not 35 have pr oper l yappl i ed atl eas ttw o G unt er/ P ru d e n tia l fact ors – t he ef fi ci encyof the att orney s i nvol ved and the r el at i ve val ue o f th e b e n e f

it attrib u tab le to c o u n se l’s e f f o rts – b e c a u se it d id notknow how m anyhour s C l as s C ouns el devot ed t o eac h a sp e c t o f its c o m m o n b e n e f

it w o rk . W e h a v e n e v e r sa id th a t a cour tm us thave thats or tof i nform at i on t o appl ythe G unt er/ P ru d e n tia l fac t or s . T o t he contr ary , as not ed above , w e have expl ai ned that“court s m ayr el yon s um m ar i es s ubm i t t ed byt he att or ney s and nee d notr evi ew actual bi l l i ng r ecor ds

. ” R ite A id , 396 F. 3d at306- 07 ( ci t i ng P r udent i al , 148 F .3 d a t 3 4 2 ). It w o u ld b e in c o n sis ten t to p e rm it co u rts to re ly o n b il li n g su m m aries, i n li eu o f a ctua l r ec o rds, bu t t o req u ir e that tho se su m m aries h av e the so rto f it em izati o n that V alori i ns i s t s t heys houl d have. M or eover , w hi l e the l odes t ar m ethod i s focus ed on the hour s thatcouns el expende d, the per cent age- of- r ecove r ym ethod i s , bydefi ni t i on, cal cul at ed 34 T r i al cour t s m us t“engage i n r obus tas s es s m ent s of the [ G unt er/ Pr udent i al ] fac t or s w hen eva l uat i ng a fe e r eques t , ” R ite A id , 396 F. 3d at 302 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) , and t hatoccurr ed her e. I n an exha us t i ve opi ni on, t he D i s t r i ctC our t gave thor ough c o n sid e ra tio n to e a c h o f th e f a c to rs. A p p e llan ts d o n o t ar g u e to t he contr ary . I ns t ead, t heychal l enge the C o u rt ’ s anal y s i s of t hr ee pa r t i cul ar fac t or s : the pr es ence orabs ence of s ubs t ant i al o b jec tio n s, th e risk o f

n o n p a ym e n t, an d th e v a lu e o f b e n e f its at t ri bu t able t o the effort s of other gr ou ps. 35b a s e d o n th e b e n e f it th a t c o u n s e l c o n f

e rr e d o n th e p la in tif

f s . T h u s, n e ith e r la w n o r lo g ic r e q u ire d th e D istric t C o u rt to cons i dert he di vi s i on of couns el ’ s l aborw hi l e det erm i ni ng the appr opr i at e per cent age of r ecove r ythr ough i t s anal y s i s of the G unt er/ P ru d e n tia l f

a c to rs . R el at edl y , R i epen a r gues thatboth s ect i on I I I

. B

. 3 of the 36 Set t l ementA gr eement , w hi ch pr event ed W y eth fr om par t i ci pat i ng i n fee aw ar d pr ocee di ngs , and the M aj orFi l er A gr eement s el i m i nat ed l i kel yobj ect or s t o t he fe e arr angement i n a mannert hatvi ol at ed publ i c pol i cy . W hyR i epen be l i eves t hatW y eth w as conce r ned abouthow the moneyi tdes i gnat ed 35 i

. P r es ence or A bs ence of Subs tant i al O bj ect i ons T h e D istri ct C o u rt fo u n d it “re m ark ab le” that there w ere s o few obj ect i ons t o t he s ett l ementt erm s and t o th e fees request ed b ycou nsel , given t he ap proxim at el y si x m i l l i on cl ass m e m b e rs in th e M D L

. Di etD r ugs , 5 5 3 F

. S u p p . 2 d a t4 7 3

. By t he C our t ’ s count , few er t han t hi r t yobj ect i ons t o t he Set t l ement A gr ee me n t , e l e v e n o b

j e c t i o n s t o t h e i n t e r i m j o i n tf e e p e t i t i o n, and onl yfour obj ect i ons t o t he fi nal j oi ntfee pet i t i on w er e fi l ed. Id

. V a lo ri c laim s tha t it w a s c lea r e rro r f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to r el ys o heavi l y on t he abse nce of obj ect i ons t o t he fi nal j oi ntfee p e tit io n b e c a u se th e M a

jo r F ilers , s o m e o f

w h o m h a d v ig o ro u sly cont es t ed the i nt er i m pet i t i on, agr eed not t o obj ect
. I n es s ence , acc or di ng t o V al or i , t he C l as s C oun sel i m pr oper l yi nfl uence d t hi s fac t ort hr ough t hei rA gr eementw i t h t he M aj orFi l er s , and th e C o u rt sh o u ld n o t h a v e c o n sid e re d it. 36foratt or ney s ’ fee s w as di s t r i but ed i s uncl ear , but , i n any e v e n t, th e tim e to o b

jec t to th e D istric t C o u rt’s e ig h t-y e a r-o ld fi ndi ng t hats ect i on I I I

. B

. 3 w as pr oper– a fi ndi ng thatw as p a rt o f th e o rd e r a p p ro v in g th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t, s ee D i et D r ugs , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 3 9 6 – h a s lo n g sin c e p a ss e d . A s to th e M a jo r F iler A g re e m e n ts, n o a u th o ritysu g g e sts th a t co u rts s h o u l d a b r o g a t e v a l i d f

e e d i v i s i o n c o n t r a c t s . T o th e c o n t r a r y, w e have r ecogni zed the bene fi t s of agr eement s r egar di ng the d is tr ib u tio n o f

a tto rn e yf

e e s . See, e. g. , I

n r e W ar f ar i n Sodi um A n titru st L iti

g . , 391 F. 3d 516, 533 n. 15 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( not i ng “the ac cept ed pr act i ce of al l ow i ng couns el t o apport i on fee s a m o n g st th e m se lv e s” ); P r udent i al , 148 F. 3d at329 n. 96 ( pr i vat e al l ocat i on agr eement s r el i eve c our t s fr om “un dert ak[ing] the d i ffi cultt ask of asses si ng cou nsel s’ re la tiv e c o n tr ib u tio n s ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ))

. 36 V al or i over stat es t he C our t ’ s r el i ance on t he l ack of obj ect i ons . I n fac t , t he C our texpl i ci t l ydecl ar ed that [t ] he pauc i t yof obj ect i ons fi l ed i n r es pons e t o t he or i gi nal and re new ed pet i t i ons forat t orney s ’ fee s and cos t s does n o tnece s s ar i l yes t abl i s h t hatthe r eques t s i n t he J oi ntPet i t i on ar e pr oper . I ndeed, s om e o bj ect or s m aynothave be en fort hcomi ng b e c a u se th is c o u rt is o b lig a ted to “ e x e rc ise its i nher entauthor i t y t o as s ur e thatthe amountand m ode of paym ent of att orney s ’ fee s ar e fair a nd p ro p e r ... i n d e p e n d e n tly o f a n yo b je c tio n .” Di e tD r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at474 ( quot i ng Ce n da n tPRI DES ,37 243 F. 3 d at 730)

. V al or i al s o fai l s t o r ecogni ze the br eadth of th e C o u r t’ s a n a ly sis . W h a tev e r w e ig h t th e C o u rt g a v e to th is fac t ori tgave ba s ed on the dea r t h of obj ect i ons thro u g houtthe se ttl e m e n t an d f

e e a d ju d ica t i on p ro c e ss , ins tea d o f f o c u sin g o n ly o n the o b jecti o n s to the fin al jo int f ee p eti ti o n . F inally , V alori di s t or t s t he ef

fec tof the agr eementbetw een Cl as s C ouns el and t he M aj orFi l er s . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatonl yone M aj orFi l er obj ect ed t o t he i nt er i m fee pet i t i on, and ther e i s n o thi ng but V al or i ’ s ar gum ent , uns uppor t ed by evi dence , t hats ugges t s t hat m or e of t he M aj orFi l er s w oul d have obj ect ed t o the fi nal p eti ti o n abs entt he agr eement
. I n s hor t , V al or i ’ s cont ent i on l eave s us unper s uaded t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed – cl ear l yor o th e rw is e – in its c o n s id e ra tio n o f th is f a c to r. ii. R is k of

N onpaym ent A ppel l ant s cl ai m thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the w r ong l egal s t andar d t o i t s r i s k- of- nonpay m en t a nal y s i s , m ade at l eas t one er r oneous fac tual fi ndi ng, and negl ect ed t o cons i der an i m por t antr i s k m i t i gat or . W e di sag r ee w i t h them on each p o in t. V al or i ar gues thatt he D i s t r i ct C our t err ed as a mat t erof l aw byas s es s i ng t he r i s k of nonpaym entonl yatthe begi nni ng o f l i t i g a t i o n , i n s t e a d o f t h r o u g h o u t t h e a c t i o n . Th at r i s k, acc or di ng t o V al or i , di s s i pat ed af t ert he Set t l ementA gr eement w as r eac h ed and, pur s uantt o i t s t erm s , W y eth agr eed t o fund es cr ow acc ount s fr om w hi ch C l as s C ouns el w oul d be c o m p e n s a te d

.38 W e have neveraddr e s s ed w hethercourt s m us tr econs i der t he r i s k o f n o n p ay m entas the ac t i on evol ves , and w e nee d not do s o her e becaus e, w hether i t w as r equi r ed or not , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtd id rea sses s th e ri sk in this ca se. A lth o u g h the C o u rt s t at ed thati tw as eval uat i ng t he r i s k of nonpaym entas of “t he i ncept ion of

t he ac t i on and notthr ough t he r os yl ens of hi nds i ght , ” D i et

D r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at478 ( ci t i ng In re N A SD A Q Market

- Maker s A nt i tr us tLi t ig. , 187 F. R

. D

. 465, 488 ( S. D

. N

. Y

. 1998) ) , i t s anal y s i s w as m or e compr ehe n sive than t hat

. T he C our ts peci fi cal l yconcl uded: T he r i s k of non[] paym entdi d notend w i t h t he appr oval of the Set t l ementA gr eeme n t. T he

“ se c o n d w a v e ” o f

lit ig a tio n in c re a se d th e liab ili ty ex p o su re W y eth fa ce d an d en d an g ere d the e n ti re Set t l ementA gr eement
. [C l as s C ouns el ] r enew ed and r edoubl ed thei ref fort s atthi s poi nt , not k n o w in g w h ether the S ett l em ent A g re e m e n t co u ld b e s a v e d

. F o r tu n a t e l yi twa s , b u td u r i n g th i s t i me i tagain app eared un cert ai n w hether[C l ass C ouns el ] coul d r eac h a poi nti n thi s l i t i gat i on w h e re th e y w o u ld b e c o m p e n sa ted f o r a ll o f th e ir e f f o rts. A t th e in c e p tio n , a n d th ro u g h o u t th is l i t i gat i on, t h ere w as a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t hatthe eff or t s of [Cl as s C ouns el ] w oul d notbe su c c e ss f u l. Id

. at479. I n pr act i ce, ther efor e, t he C our teval uat ed the r i s k of n o n p ay m en t i n the v erym an n er tha t V alori ad v o ca tes; V alori s i m pl ydoes notl i ke the conc l us i on the C our tr eac hed.39 In a rela t ed arg u m en t, R iepe n take s issue w ith the C o u rt ’s fi ndi ng t hatC l as s C ouns el “fa ced s i gnifi ca ntr i s k [of nonpaym ent ] at t he begi nni ng of the l i t i gat i on. ” Id

. a t 4 7 8

. He cl ai m s that, t o the c o n trary , the “d eck [ w as] st acked against W y eth f r o m t h e v e r yb e g i n n i n g . ” ( App e l l a n t ’ s Br

. , No. 0 8- 2 3 6 3 , at 4 1 .) W y e th , ac c o rd in g to R iep e n , fa c e d p o ten tially cr i ppl i ng l i abi l i t y , t hr ough s t at e and fede r al l i t i gat i on, and hi ghpr ofi l e s chol ar s hi p t hates t abl i s hed the l i nk betw ee n the di et drugs and hea r td isease. A s a r es ul t , i tent er ed i nt o s ett l ement neg oti at i on s w i t h the PM C veryearl yi n the l i t i gati on process, an d as par tof the s et t l ementi tagr eed t o paym or e than $400 m i l l i on i nt o t w o funds fr om w hi ch cl as s at t orney s w oul d be c o m p e n s a te d

. R i epen c onfus es the ri s k of nonpay m ent atthe i ncept i on of l i t i gat i on w i t h t he r i s k i m m edi at el yaft er the Set t l ement A g re e m e n t w a s e x e c u ted . W h ile th e e sc ro w f u n d s u n d o u b ted ly red u ce d the risk o f no n p ay m en t, tho se fu n d s w ere b u t on e p art of an i nt r i cat e agr eement t hat t he PM C negot i at ed w i t h W y eth. I f, as t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed, the Set t l ementA gr eement “had notbeen s t ructur ed t o avoi d a rui nous out come forW y eth, th e e f fo rt s o f [ C lass C o u n sel] w o u ld h av e b ee n fo r na u g h t.” D i et D r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at479. A ddi t i onal l y , R i epen’ s vi ew o f t h e r i s k o f

n o n p a yme n ti s mo r e my o p i c t h a n t h e Co u r t ’ s . As not ed above , t he C our tas s es s ed r i s k not at one fi xed poi nti n t he act i on, butt hr oughout i t s exi s t ence . R i epen doe s notchal l enge, forexampl e, the C our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he r i s k of nonpaym ent i ncr eas ed once t he “s econd w ave” of l i t i gati o n thr eat ened the Set t l ementA gr eement , and, b as ed on the r ecor d, he coul d not p e rs u a s iv e ly d o s o .40 L as t l y , V al or i cont ends t hat t he C our t err ed i n eval uat i ng th e risk o f

n o n p a ym e n t b yn e g lect in g to c o n sid e r th e “ p o ten tially bi l l i ons of doll ars i n fee s ” thatC l as s C ouns el w as r ece i vi ng fr om t hei rr epr es ent at i on of di etd rug cl ai m ant s i n concurr ent s t at e l aw cas es . W hat i ndi vi dual couns el r ece i ved i n a part i cul ar s t at e cas e, how ever , i s i r r el evant t o t he fee aw ar d her e, w hi ch com pen sat es C l ass C ou nsel for services t hat be nefitt ed all cl ass m em bers, as w el l as the li t i gan t s i n co ordi nated st at e act i o n s. S e e , e.g ., R ite A id , 396 F. 3d at 302 n. 11 ( r efus i ng t o “conf l at e [] t w o di st i nct set t l em ents ” w hen con si deri ng t he “reasonab l eness o f th e a tt o rne y s’ fe es b ase d o n o n e se tt lem en t fu n d ”).

iii

. V a lu e o f B e n e fit s A ttrib u ta b le to O thers I n as s es s i ng w hetherC l as s C ouns el had bene fi t t ed fr om “the ef for t s of othergr oups , s uch as governm en t a genci es conduct i ng i nves t i gat i ons , ” A T &T, 455 F. 3d at165 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed t hat t hi s cas e di ffe r ed fr om t he t ypi cal ant i t rus tors ecur i t i es l i t i gat i on – i n w hi ch the G u n te r/ P ru d e n tia l fa ctors a re o ften co n side red – “w h ere go v ern m entpr os ecut i ons fr equent l yl aythe gr oundw or k for pr i vat e l i t i gat i on, ” D i et

D r ugs , 5 5 3 F

. S u p p . 2 d at 48 1

. T h e C o u rt con cl ud ed that , w hil e C l ass C ou nsel w as in so m e sense behol den t o t he s chol ar s w ho l i nked t he di etdrugs t o V H D , and behol den as w el l t o t he FD A for i t s eff ort s t o r emove t he drugs fr om t h e ma r k e t , Cl a s s Cou n s e l h a d n o tr e l i e d o n “ t he governm entorot herpubl i c agenc i es t o do t hei rw or k forthem as has occurr ed i n s om e ca s es . ” Id

. a t 4 8 1 -8 2

.Si m i l ar l y , w e have r efe r r ed t o t he s ett l ementas “a 37 l andmar k eff

or tt o r econc i l e the r i ght s of m i l l i ons of i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs w i t h t he ef fi ci enci es and fa i r nes s of a cl as s - bas ed s et t l ement
. ” D i et D r ugs , 3 6 9 F .3 d a t 3 1 7

. 41 A ccor ding to R i epen, the C our tcomm i tt ed an e r r orof l aw byl i m i t i ng i t s anal y s i s t o t he ef for t s of s chol ar s and the FD A , and ther ebyi gnor i ng t he contr i but i ons of the l aw y er s w ho, w hi l e conduc t i ng cont em p o ran eo u s d ietd rug s li ti g ati on i n T exas sta te c o u rts, o b tain e d m ill io n s o f p a g e s o f d isc o v e ry f

ro m W y e th a n d to o k 4 3 d e p o sitio n s b e f o re a sin g le d e p o sitio n to o k p lac e in th e M D L . B e c a u se th e M D L trial d o c k e t lag g e d b e h in d th o se in s t at e courtcas es i n T exas , R i epen b el i eves thatthe Texas l a wy e r s p r o v i d e d Cl a s s Co u n s e l a “ l i t i g a t i o n r o a d ma p . . . [ : ] At the e n d of t he day , t he PM C onl y had t o t ake depos i t i ons for a fe w m o nt hs

. . . befor e [W y eth] i ni t i at ed s ett l ementdi s cus s i ons w ith them [sic].” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. , N o . 0 8 -23 6 3 , at 39

. ) R i epen i s corr ectt hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t di d notm ent i on t he Texas l aw y er s’ w o rk in c onj unct i on w i t h t hi s fac t or . T hat d o es n o t m ea n , h o w ev er, th at th e C o u rtign o red the c o n tr ibu tory e f f o rts o f th e T e x a s la w y e r s in d e ter m in in g a n a p p ro p ria te per cent age of r ecove r y . T he i s s ue w as l i t i gat ed duri ng bot h t he i nt er i m and fi nal fee adj udi cat i on, and the C our tdet erm i ned t hat , w hat ever t he Texas cas es m ayhave a dded, the r ecove r i es ar i s i ng fr om t he M D L w er e due t o t he “he r cul ean e ffort s ” of the PM C – i n devel opi ng t he cas e agai ns t W y eth, i n negot i at i ng an 37 a g re e m e n t th a t allo w e d W y e th to re so lv e th e c laim s a g a in st it,T o t he ext entt hatR i epen makes the r el at ed ar gum ent 38 t hatt he G unt er/

P ru d e n tia l fa ctor o f a tt o rne ysk il l and ef fo rt does nots uppor ts uch a l ar ge aw ar d, the D i s t r i ctC our thas , as not ed above , s ai d ot herw i s e, and R i epen ha s notdemonstr at ed th a t th e re le v a n t f

in d in g s a re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . “To sayt hatt hi s l i t i gat i on w as compl ex, ” i n t he D i s t r i ct 39 C our t ’ s vi ew , “i s s er i ous l yt o under s t at e the fa ct
. ” D i et D r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at475. T he C our temphasi zed “ t he com pli cat ed n ature of thi s m at t er, and the co nst ant chal l eng es, 42 a n d in a m e n d in g th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w h e n it ap p e a re d to b e i n j e o p a r d y. D i et

D r ugs , 5 5 3 F .S u p p .2 d a t 4 7 4

. 38
B uteven i f w e agr eed thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tunderval ued t he T exas l aw y er s ’ contr i but i ons – or i f w e agr eed w i t h anyone o f A p p e llan ts’ d isc re te c h a llen g e s – w e w o u ld n o t, on th a t b a sis al on e, vacate the fe e aw ard . “T he fe e aw ard r easona bleness fac t or s ‘ need notbe appl i ed i n a form ul ai c w ay ’ beca us e ea ch cas e i s di ffe r ent , ‘ and i n cert ai n cas es , one fa ct orm ayout w ei gh t he r es t
. ’ ” A T

&T, 455 F. 3d at166 ( quot i ng R ite A id , 396 F. 3d at301)

. O urt as k i s t o di s cern w hether t he C our t ’ s per cent ageof- r ecove ryanal y s i s , w hen exa m i ned i n i t s t ot al i t y , s uppor t s t he f e e th a t it f

in a lly d e te rm in e d w a s a p p ro p ri a te
. T he C our t m ade num er ous fi ndi ngs per t ai ni ng to the G unt er/ P ru d e n tia l fact or s t hatA ppel l ant s do notdi s put e. For i ns t ance , i tfou n d t hat( 1) the w or k of C l as s C ouns el y i el ded a $6. 44 bi l l i on s et t l ement fund t hat benef i t t ed m or e than 800, 000 cl as s m ember s ; ( 2) t he D i etD rugs l i t i gat i on w as compl ex, and 39m a n yo f th e m n o v e l, w h ich [ C las s C o u n se l] a s w e ll as th is cour tencount er ed y eari n and y earout , and oft en dayi n and dayout
. ” Id

. In t otal , t he C ou rtcon si dered n i ne such cases: In re 40 Tyco I nt ’ lLtd. , 5 3 5 F .S u p p .2 d 2 4 9 (D .N .H . 2 0 0 7 ); I n r e Royal A hold N

. V

. Sec. & ER I

SA Li t ig. , 461 F. Supp. 2d 383 ( D

. M d. 2 0 0 6 ); In re A O L T

im e W a rn e r, In c . Se c . L iti

g . , N o. 02 C i v. 5 5 7 5 (S W K ), 2 0 0 6 W L 3 0 5 7 2 3 2 (S .D .N .Y . O c t. 25 , 2 0 0 6 ); In r e W or ldC om , I

nc. Sec. Li t ig. , 3 8 8 F

. S u p p . 2 d 3 1 9 ( S

. D. N. Y. 2 0 0 5 ); In re V

isa C h e c k

/M a ste rm o n e

y A n titru st L iti

g . , 297 F .S u p p .2 d 5 0 3 (E .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 3 ); D e lo a c h v . P h ili p Mo rr is C os. , N o. 1: 00C V 01235, 2003 W L 23094907 ( M

. D

. N

. C

. D ec. 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 ); In re S u lze r Hip P ro sth e sis & Kn e e P ro sth e sis Li ab. Li t ig. , 2 6 8 F .S u p p .2 d 9 0 7 (N .D . O h io 2 0 0 3 ); Shaw v. T oshiba A m . Inf

o. Sys. , 9 1 F

. S u p p . 2 d 9 4 2 (E

. D

. T ex . 2 0 0 0 ); I n r e N A SD A Q M

arket

- M aker s A nt i tr us tLi t ig. , 1 8 7 F

. R. D. 4 6 5 (S

. D

. N

. Y

. 1 9 9 8 ). 43 i tendur ed s i gni fi cant l y l ongerthan di d ot hers uper - m ega- fund cas es ; ( 3) C l as s C ouns el had devot ed an e xtr aor di naryamount

40 of t i m e t o t he Set t l ementA gr eementand the l i t i gat i on surr ou nd i ng i t ; (4) t he requ e s t ed aw ard w as, i n p ercent age term s, s l i ght l ybel ow t he ave r age a w ar d gr ant ed i n t he s uper - m egafund ca s es ; ( 5) t he M aj orFi l er s ’ cons ent t o t he j oi ntfee pet i t i on i ndi cat ed t hat t he pet i t i oner s w er e not s eeki ng fee s i n exce s s of m ark et va lue; an d (6) m an yo f th e S ett le m en t A g ree m en t’ s features – i ncludi ng t he m ult i ple dow nst ream op t -ou tri gh t s – w er e i nnovat i ve and “ha[ d] al r eady s erved as m odel s foro t herW e t oo not ed the “pot ent i al s i gni fi canc e” thatthe 41 S et t l em ent A greem ent’ s i nn ov at i on s hold for future cl ass a c tio n s e ttle m e n ts , D i et D r ugs , 4 0 1 F

. 3 d at 16 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ), a s d id a t le a s t o n e c o m m e n ta to r, s ee N a g a re d a , supra , 1 1 5 H arv . L

. R ev . at 79 7

. T h e S ett lem en t A g ree m en t’ s p o tential lyp o sit ive im p ac t as a m o d el fo r oth er c ase s ap p ea rs to b e la rg e ly u n re a liz e d a t th is tim e . S e e , e .g ., Ri c h a r d A. N a g a re d a , Mas s Tort

s i n a W or ld of Set t l em ent

147 ( C hi cago 2007) ( acknow l edgi ng thats chol ar s under es t i m at ed the oper at i onal di ffi cul t i es of the D i etD rugs sett lem en t m o d el); M c G o v e rn , supra , at 1 8 1 5 (“ M o st o b se rv e rs o f m a ss to rts d o u b t th a t an yo th e r d e f e n d a n t w ill u se a sim ilar se ttl e m e n t appr oach. ”)

. H ow ever , the fa ctr emai ns thatC l as s C ouns el expende d a gr eatdeal of ef for tt o s ett l e w i t h W y eth, and the Set t l ementA gr eementthatthe part i es r eac hed w as i nnovat i ve, if p e rh a p s n o t e n tir e ly w o rt h yo f im ita tio n . T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so perform ed a lodest ar cr oss- 42 chec k, w hi ch w e have r ecomm ended a s a means of as s es s i ng w hethert he per cent age- of- r ecove r yaw ar d i s t oo hi gh ort oo lo w . E .g ., R ite A id , 3 9 6 F

. 3 d at 30 6 -07

. W h il e the C o u rt det erm i ned thatt he aw ar d r epr es ent ed 2. 6 t i m es the l odes t ar v a lu e o f C las s C o u n se l’s w o rk , itre c o g n ize d th a t it s

44 c a s e s .” D i et

D r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at 472- 85. O n t he bas i s of 41 th o se e x ten siv e – a n d u n c o n tes ted – f in d in g s a lo n e , w e w o u ld concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fee aw ar d w as notan abus e of d iscreti o n . A s n o ted a b o v e, h o w ev er, the asp ec ts of the C o u rt ’s anal y s i s t hatA ppel l ant s chal l enge al s o s uppor tt he per cent ageof- r ecove ryaw ar d t hatC l as s C ouns el r ece i ved. 42m u lt ipli er w as a rt ifi ciall ylow b ec au se th e a u d it o r’s repo rt i n c l u d e d t i me e x p e n d e d o n th e M DL, i n a d d i t i o n t o t i me e x p e n d e d o n th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t. See i nf r a Sect i on I

. B

. 2. B yR i epen’ s cal cul at i on, the ac tual l odes t arm ul t i pl i er is 3 .4 . W h e th e r th e m u lti p lier is 2 .6 , 3 .4 , o r so m e w h e re in t hatnei ghbor hood, i ti s notpr obl emat i cal l yhi gh. I ti s ei t her bel ow orneart he ave r age mut l i pl i eri n t he “s uper - m ega- fund” c a s e s d is c u s s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt , id

. at486, and con si st ent w i t h o ur advice r egardi ng app ropri at e m ult i pli ers , s e e , e . g . , Ce n da n tPRI

DES , 243 F. 3d at735- 36, 742 ( “s t r ongl ys ugges t [i ng] ” a mul t i pl i erof 3 as the ce i l i ng foran a w a rd in a sim p le c a se w h e re “ n o risk s p e rta in in g to liab ili ty o r c o llec tio n w e re p e rtin e n t”) ; P r udent i al , 148 F. 3d at341 ( “[M ] ul t i pl es r angi ng fr om one t o fourar e fr equent l yaw ar ded i n comm on fund ca s es w hen the l odes t arm ethod i s appl i ed. ” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ))

. R i epen r epr es ent ed fouri ni t i al opt
- outcl i ent s . T he 43 P M C d isp u tes w h e th e r V a lo ri re p re se n ted a n ysu c h c lien ts 45 C

. Ap

p lica b il it

y o f t h e M

D L A s s e s s m e n ts to Appel l ant

s ’C as es A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t i t was i mpr o p e r , u n d e r t he c o m m o n b e n e f

its d o c trin e , fo r th e C o u rt to lev ya ss e ss m e n ts a g a in st th e ir c lien ts (1 ) w h o re c o v e re d a g a in st W y e th o n th e ir PPH cl a i ms , whi c h wer e n o tc o v e r e d b yt h e Se t t l ement A g re e m e n t (“ P P H c lien ts” ), an d (2 ) w h o e x e rc is e d in iti a l o p tou t s fr om t he S et t l em ent A greem ent and recove red against W y eth ind ep endent l y( “i ni t i al opt
- outcl i ent s ”)

. I n addi t i on, 43and, t hus , w hetherhe has s t andi ng t o chal l enge the asse ssm en ts ap p li ed to init ial o p t- o u t and P P H rec o v eries. I t appea r s , how ever , t hatV al or i r epr es ent ed atl eas tone i ni t i al opt
- outpl ai nt i ff w ho s ett l ed hercas e aga i ns tW y eth, and V a lo ri a ss e rte d a t ar g u m e n t th a t h e re p re se n ted P P H c laim a n ts as w el l

. W e ac ceptt hatV al or i has s t andi ng. W hi l e the comm on benef i tdoctr i ne i s di s t i nctfr om the 44 c o m m o n f

u n d d o c tr in e , th e f

o rm e r d e ri v e s f

ro m th e la tte r. See Pol ons kiv. Trum

p TajMahal , 1 3 7 F

. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 5 (3d C ir

. 1998) ( “The or i gi ns of [the comm on benef i t ] doctr i ne ca n be t r ace d t o t he comm on fund rul e w her ebythos e w ho s har e i n a fund m us tpar t i ci pat e i n pay i ng at t orney ’ s fee s w hen a pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i ff' s l i t i gat i on r edounds t o t he bene fi tof the comm on fund. ” ( ci t i ng H a ll v. C o le , 4 1 2 U

. S

. 1 , 5 n . 7 (19 7 3 ); 1 D an B

. D o b b s, L aw o f R em ed ies § 3

. 1 0 (2) (2 d ed

. 1 9 9 3 )). 46 R i epen cont ends t hat the M D L as s es s m ent s houl d not have be en l evi ed aga i ns tone of hi s cl i ent ’ s r ecove r i es beca us e the D i s t r i ct C ou rtl acked s ub

j e c tmatt er j uri sdi ct i on ov er that cl i ent’ s cl ai m s. “U ndert he comm on benef i t d o ctr i ne, an aw ar d of

44 at t or ney ’s fee s i s appr opr i at e w her e ‘ t he pl ai nt i ff’ s s ucce s s ful l i t i gat i on confe r s a s ubs t ant i al benefi ton t he mem ber s of an as cert aina b le cl as s , and w her e the court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on overthe su b jec t m a tter o f

th e su it m a k e s p o ss ib le a n a w a r d th a t w ill o p era te to sp rea d the c o sts pro p o rt ion atelyam o n g them

. ’” P ol ons ki , 137 F. 3d at145 ( quot i ng H a ll , 41 2 U

. S

. at5). T hu s, i n or der t o obt ai n comm on benef i tfee s , an att orneym us tconfe r a s ubs t ant i al benef

i tt o m ember s of an a s cert ai nabl e cl as s , and47 t he courtm us tens ur e thatthe cos t s ar e pr opo rt ion at el ys pr ead a m o n g th a t c la s s . Id

. B oth R i epen and V al ori argue t hat C l ass Couns e l c on fe rr e d n o b e ne fi ton the i ri ni t i a l op t
- ou ta nd PPH c l i e nt s . V a l or i a l s o c on t e nd s tha tthe i ni t i a l op t -out a nd PPH p lain tiff s b e a r a d isp ro p o rtio n a te b u rd e n o f th e a ss e ss m e n t, w h e n c o m p a re d w ith th e d o w n s tr e a m o p t- o u t c la im a n ts
. T he PM C qu e s t i o n s whe th e rth e c o mmon b enef i tdoctr i ne even a p p l i e s i n mul t i d i s t r i c tl i t i g a t i o n s s u c h a s th i s o n e , a nd s ugges ts tha t t he pr i nci pal bas i s fort he exe r ci s e of a di s t r i ct court’s pow ert o l evyan as s es s m ent“der i ves fr om t he docke t m a n a g e m e n t p o w e rs o f th e f e d e ra l ju d ic ia ry.” (A p p e lle e s ’ B r., N o. 08- 2363, at57. ) T he J udi ci al Pa n el f o r M ul t i di s t r i ct L i t i gat i on i s empow er ed, under28 U

. S. C

. § 1407, t o t r ans fer re late d c a se s to a sin g le c o u rt, an d th a t c o u rt h a s – a n d is e x p e c ted to e x e rc ise

– th e a b ili ty to c ra f t a p lain tiff

s’ le a d e rsh ip or gani zat i on t o as s i s tw it h cas e management
. I nher enti n that abi l i t y , acc or di ng t o t he PM C , i s t he pow ert o fas hi on s om e w ay of co m pen sat i ng t he att orney s w ho provide cl ass- w i de servi ces. T he PM C fi nds s uppor tfori t s pos i t i on i n In re AirC rash D isasteratF l a. E ver

glades on D ec. 29, 1972 , 5 4 9 F. 2 d 1 0 06 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). L ik e th is c a s e , F l ori da E vergl ad es w as a mu l t i d i s t r i c tl i t i g a t i o n i n wh i c h , a tt h e f e e a wa r d s t a g e , t h e M DL co u rtg ran ted th e p lai n ti ff s’ m an ag em en t com m ittee a f ee aw ard draw n from t he fees recei ved by i nd i vidual plai nti ffs’ att orney s. Id

. a t 1 0 0 8 -0 9

. T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e F if th C i r cui tconcl uded, overt he appe l l ant s’ obj ect i on, t hatl evy i ng s uch an as s es s m ent w as w i t hi n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m anage r i al p o w er:48 A p p ell an ts ap p roa ch th e ca se a s tho u g h itw ere pur el ya pr i vat e cont es toverfees betw een c o m p e tin g law y e rs. T h is a p p ro a c h is a n o sta lg ic l uxur yno l on g er a vai l abl e i n t he har d- pr es s ed fede r al cour t s . I tover l ooks t he much l ar ger i nter est s w hic h a ri se i n li t i gati on such as t his

. E a c h c a se in th e c o n so lid a ted c a se w a s p riv a te in i t s i ncept i on. B ut t he num berand cumul at i ve s i ze of the m assed cases creat ed a pen um bra of clas st ype i nt er es ton t he partof al l l it i gant s and of pub li c i nt er es ton t he partof the courtand the w or l d atl ar ge. T he pow ero f t he courtm us tbe a ss a y e d in th is s e m i-p u b lic c o n tex t. Id

. a t 1 0 1 2

. T h e F if th C irc u it’s o b se rv a tio n s a re a p t an d a p p lyw ith even g rea te rfor ce i n t hi s M D L , w hi ch dw ar fed the s i ze of F l or i da E ver

gl ades , w ith hu nd reds of t ho usand s of cl ass m e m b e r s s p r e a d a l l a c r o s s th e U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h a ti s n o tt o s a y, how ever , t hatt he D i s tri ctC our tcan i gnor e bas i c pr i nci pl es of f a ir n e s s in a p p lyin g a n a s s e s s m e n t. F l or i da E ver glades is n o t to t he contr ary . I ndeed, the Fi fth C i r cui t vaca t ed t he fee aw ar d and re m a n d e d so th a t th e d istric t c o u rt c o u ld c o n d u c t a “ h e a rin g in t he ful l se ns e of the w or d” and e nt erfi ndi ngs of fa ctand c o n c lu sio n s o f

law f ro m w h ich th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls c o u ld d e term i ne w hethert he aw ard con st i tuted a fai r and j ust enr i chmentof the plainti ffs ’ comm i t t ee, s houl d t he di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s d e c is io n b e a p p e a le d

. Id

. a t 1 0 2 1

.49 L i kew i s e, w e must ens ur e t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed C l as s C o u n sel a j us taw ar d i n thi s cas e. W hetherw e do s o by a p p lyi n g th e c o m m o n b e n e f its d o c trin e o r in d e p e n d e n tly asses si ng w hether t he D i stri ct C ou rt properl y exerci sed its ma n a g e r i a l p o we ri s o f

n o r e a l c o n s e q u e n c e . No ma t t e rh o w we l abel our anal y s i s , w e m us t det erm i ne w hether t he C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n concl uding t hatC l as s C ouns el confe r r ed a su b sta n tial b e n e f

it o n th e in iti a l o p t-o u t a n d P P H p lain tiff s o r in h o w it sp re a d th e b u rd e n o f th e a ss e ss m e n t a m o n g c la im a n ts w h o re c o v e re d o u ts id e o f th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t. 1

. S u b sta n tia l B e n e fit A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t th e ir in iti a l o p t-o u t a n d P P H c lien ts d i d n o te n

j o ya s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f

i tf r o m th e P M C’ s s e r v i c e s . By A ppel l ant s ’ l i ght s , beca us e thos e cl i ent s w er e notpar t i es t o the S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t, th e yd id n o t re c e iv e a n yo f th e b e n e f

its – s uch as m edi cal t es t i ng or cl ai m s pr es ervat i on – forw hi ch the PM C bar gai ned. A nd, al t hough t he PM C obt ai ned cl as s - w i de di s coveryt o w hi ch al l pl ai nt i ffs ’ att orney s had ac ces s , R i epen i n par t i cul arcont ends t hathe di d not us e i t i n pur s ui ng hi s i ni t i al opt
- out cl i ent s ’ cl ai m s agai ns t W y eth. R ather , he i ns i s t s t hatt he onl ypr e- exi s t i ng di s covery that he us ed t o devel op hi s i ni t i al opt
- outcas es w as pr ocur ed byl aw y er s ( i ncl udi ng hi m s el f) i n the T exas s t at e cour t cas es agai ns t W y eth. V al or i i s l es s cl earabout w hetherhe u sed t he M D L dis cov ery , bu the n on et heles s ar gu es, g e n e ra lly , t h a t th e P M C ’s w o rk p ro d u c t d id n o t su b sta n tially ben efi this i nit i al op t -outand P P H cl i ents
. A c c or di ng t o the D i s t r i c tCour t , ho w e ve r , the PM C be s t owed n umer ou s be ne fi t s on i ni t i al op t
- ou ta nd PPHW e re w e to c re d it R iep e n ’s a rg u m e n t, w e w o u ld 45 pr ovi de an i ncent i ve forl aw y er s w ho r epr es enti ndi vi dual cl i ent s i n an M D L t o i gnor e the w or k pr oductgener at ed by C l a s s C o u n s e l i n f

a v o ro f g e n e r a t i n g d u p l i c a t i v e d i s c o v e r y, and w e w oul d t her ebyunderm i ne the ef fi ci encygai ns thatthe ju d ic ia l s y s te m re a liz e s f ro m M D L s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o not ed thatpartof the as s es s m ent 46 w a s in ten d e d to re im b u rse th e P M C f o r th e f e e s th a t itp a id to th e sp e c ial d isc o v e rym a ste r. It w a s, a c c o rd in g to th e C o u rt, b ey o n d d ispu te th at th e S p ec ial M aster’s ex tr ao rdin ary s ervi ces had bene fi t t ed al l M D L cl ai m ant s . A ppel l ant s do not d is p u te th a t f

in d in g . 50 cl ai m ant s , even i f t hei r att orney s di d notus e the di s coverythat t he P M C m ar s hal ed and r et ai ned. T he m er e ava i l abi l i t yof the di s covery , i n t he C our t ’ s w or ds , “su b s t ant i al l yi nfl uence d [W y eth’ s ] eval uat i on of eve r y pl ai n ti ff [’] s cas e. ” ( A pp. at 45 1194 ( emphasi s ad d ed )

. ) M or e t angi bl y , t he C our tfound that th e P M C h a d , to th e b e n e f it o f e v e ryc laim a n t, he lp e d to admi ni s t ert he M D L byt r acki ng i ndi vi d u al c as es , di s t r i but i ng cour tor der s , and s ervi ng as a r epos i t o ry o f i nform at i on c o n c e rn in g th e litig a tio n a n d s e ttle m e n t. D i etD r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at493. Fur t hermore , i tobt ai ned a numberof fa v or abl e di s coveryand evi dent i aryrul i ngs t hatappl i ed on a l i t i gat i on- w i de b a s i s , and i tenfor ced a uni form pr ocedur e forthe p rod u cti o n o f do cu m en ts, d ep o sit ion test im o n y , an d e x p ert di s cl os ur es t hatgoverned eve r yM D L cas e aga i ns tW y eth. 46W e do notm ean t o i m pl ythatthe exi s t ence of a 47 se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t b yitse lf c o n stitu tes a su b sta n tial b e n e f it t o opt
- outcl ai m ant s i n everycl as s act i on. T hi s cas e pr es ent ed a uni que s etof ci r cumst ance s – t he s t agger i ng amount of l i abi l i t yt hatW y eth fac ed, the qual i t yand quant i t yof the di s coveryt hatt he PM C amass ed, and the s peed w i t h w hi ch W y e th a n d C las s C o u n se l re a c h e d a se ttl e m e n t – th a t se v e re ly w eake ned W y eth’ s bar gai ni ng pos i t i on agai ns tPPH and in iti a l o p t-o u t cla im a n ts. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n deci di ng t hatthe PM C des erves t o be com pen sat ed fo r i ncreasi ng tho se cl ai m ants ’ l everage ag ai nst W y e th

. 51 A ppel l ant s do not cont es t any of t hos e fi ndi ngs , and ea ch has s ubs t ant i al s uppo rt in the r ecor d. W e thi nk i tbey ond re a so nab l e den i al t hat the ini t i al op t -outand P P H cl ai m ants benef i t t e d f r o m Wy e th ’ s l o s s o f b a r g a i n i n g p o wer d u e t o t he P M C ’s e f

f o rts. A s th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted , W y e th h a d to d e f e n d itse lf

a g a in st th e in iti a l o p t-o u t an d P P H c laim a n ts know i ng t hatt heyhad ac ces s t o per t i nentdi s coveryand u n d e rsta n d in g th a t th e y , in tu rn , k n e w W ye th w a s h e a v ily i nv est ed i n s et t l i ng . It st and s t o r eason, t he n , tha t tho se pl ai nt i ffs s t ood a bett erchanc e of r ecove r yfr om W y eth t han t he yw ou l d h a ve a bs e ntthe PM C’s ef fo r t s . Thus , the PM C c on ferr e d a s ub s t a nt i a l be ne fi ton the i ni t i a l op t
- ou ta nd PPH cl ai m ants
. 47O urdi s s ent i ng col l eague pr opos es thatw e or derthe 48 D istric t C o u rt to re c o u p th e re f u n d s th a t th e d o w n stre a m o p toutcl ai m ant s r ece i ved w hen thei ras s es s m ent s w er e r educe d from 6% & 4% t o 2 % & 1. 33 % , and t o redi stri bu t e t ho se fun ds pr o r ata among t he dow ns t r eam opt
- outcl ai m ant s , the i ni t i al opt
- outcl ai m ant s , and the PPH cl ai m ant s . T o t he extentt hat V al ori speci fi cal l yasked f or that r el i ef, he d i d so i n hi s r epl ybr i ef ( s ee A ppel l ant ’ s R ep. B r . , N o. 08- 2387, at 1 3 ) (“ W h a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e d o n e .. . w a s to recogn i ze t hat, t o the ext ent m on eyded i cat ed to payC l ass C ouns el and the PM C due t o t he cl as s act i on s ett l ement s houl d be cr edi t ed t ow ar d pay i ng the as s es s m ent s agai ns tany o p t-o u ts ... , the c re d its sh o u ld b e a p p lied e q u a llya c ro ss a ll cat egor i es of opt

- out s . ) ) and w e do notthi nk i tw el l

- advi s ed, es peci al l yi n eval uat i ng a s ett l ementw i t h as m anym ovi ng p a rts a s th is o n e h a s, to c o n sid e r a re m e d yn o t re q u e ste d u n til th a t p o in t. See I

n r e Sur r i ck , 338 F. 3d 224, 237 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( Fai l i ng t o ar gue an i s s ue i n one’ s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai verof the ar gum enton appea l )

. H ad the r ecomm endat i on been t i m el ypr opos ed, i tcoul d have be en t es t ed bythe adver s arypr oces s and i t s r ami fi cat i ons coul d have be en t h o r o u g h l yc o n s i d e r e d

. T h a td i d n o th a p p e n , a n d th u s we cannotagr ee thator der i ng r el i ef w hi ch appa r ent l yw as s u g g e s t e d a s a n a f

t e r t h o u g h ti s a n a p p r o p r i a t e s t e p n o w.

52 2. P ro

p o rtio n a lit

y V a lo ri a rg u e s th a t th e b u rd e n o f th e a ss e ss m e n t f

e ll di s pr opor t i onat el yon t he i ni t i al opt
- outand PPH cl ai m ant s and t hat the fe e aw ard m ustbe v acat ed o n thatbasi s. A s he no t es, 48R e c a ll th a t th e 6 % & 4 % A ss e ss m e n t w a s d e sig n e d to 49 rew ard C l ass C ou nsel for w ork t hat benefitt ed all cl ai m ants , i ncl udi ng t hos e w ho r ecove r ed fr om W y eth out s i de of the cont extof the Set t l ementA gr eement
. R ecove r i es by cl ai m ant s w ho w er e or i gi nal l ypartof the M D L w er e as s es s ed ata rat e of 6 % , w hil e 4% asses sm ents w ere l evied against c la im a n ts w h o re c o v e re d in c o o rd in a te d s ta te a c tio n s . 53 a 6% & 4% A sses sm ent w as l evi ed aga i ns tal l opt
- out 49 re c o v e rie s p u rsu a n t to th e in ter im f e e a w a rd , b u t, as a p p lied to do w nst ream op t -outcl ai m ants , t he C ou rt , i n it s fin a l analy si s, acc ept ed the PM C ’ s r ecomm endat ion tha tthe as s es s m entbe r educe d t o 2% & 1. 33%

. T he PM C expl ai ned the l ogi c behi nd the d i sparat e asses sm ents thu sly : D o w n stre a m o p t-o u t claim ants , a s o p p o se d to in iti a l o p t-o u t an d P P H c laim a n ts, re c o v e re d in p a r tb e c a u s e o f

t h e Se t t l e me n tAgr e e me n t
. Th e me d i cal m o n ito rin g th a t W y e th p a id f o r allo w e d th e m to e sta b lish th e ir i n j u r i e s , a n d , wi t h o u t t h e c l a i ms p r e s e r v a t i o n t e r ms t o w hi ch W y e t h a g r e e d , t h e y ma y h a v e b e e n f r o z e n o u t o f t h e t o r ts y s t e m. T her e f o r e , par tof the fe e aw ar d dr aw n fr om dow ns t r eam opt
- out r ecove r i es came outof the Sett l ementA ccoun ts a n d t he as s es s m ent s fr om t he M D L Fee and C os t A ccount w er e r educe d acc or di ngl y . T he r educt i on pr event ed C l as s C ouns el fr om bei ng pai d t w i ce f

ort he benef

i t s confe r r ed on t he dow ns t r eam opt
- out c la im a n ts
. T hatt he PM C cr eat ed, and the D i s t r i ctC our tappr oved, a “pr ophy l act i c aga i ns t‘ doubl e di ppi ng’ ” i s l audabl e. ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . , N o. 08- 2387, at25. ) H ow ever , i ti s al s o a nons equi tur as a r es pons e t o V al or i ’ s cont ent i on thatt he bur den ofW e ca nnotagr ee, how ever , w i t h V al or i ’ s s ugges t i on 50 t hatt he M aj orFi l er s , m anyof w hom r epr es ent ed dow ns t r eam o p t-o u t cla im a n ts, re f

ra in e d f ro m o b jec tin g to th e a ss e ss m e n ts onl ybeca us e theyr ece i ved addi t i onal compensa t i on thati s not re f le c te d in th e a g re e m e n ts s u b m itte d to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . , N o. 08- 2387, at36 and n. 18. ) C l as s C ouns el and the M aj orFi l er s agr eed thatther e w er e no other “agr eement s , pr om i s es , orunder t aki ngs ” among t hem (A pp. at13023) an d the C o u rtfo u n d , as a m att er o f f ac t, that there w e re n o s u c h s e c re t d e a ls in p la c e . D i et D r ugs , 553 F. Supp. 2d at483. V al or i has poi nt ed t o no evi dence that in d ica tes th e C o u rt’s f

in d in g is c lea rlye rro n e o u s, a n d w e re ly o n th a t f in d in g . T he di s s entw oul d hol d t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n notappl y i ng “extr a s crut i ny ” t o t he M aj or Fi l erA gr eement s , w hi ch ar e s ai d t o benef i tthe M aj orFi l er s at t he e xp e ns e of

a t t orne y s fo rthe i ni t i a l op t
- ou ta nd PPH cl ai m ant s . ( D i s s ent i ng O p. at73. ) T o rul e as the di s s ent s ugges t s , how ever , w oul d underm i ne the abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d. T he boundar i es s etbythatpart i cul ar l ydefe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew can be di ffi cul tt o di s cern att i m es , butthe stan d ard o u g h t t o m ea n at l ea st th at an ap p ell ate c o u rt ’s 54 th e f e e a w a rd w a s n o t allo c a ted p ro p o rtio n a tel yto th e b e n e f its th a t e a c h g ro u p o f c laim a n ts rec e iv e d

. U n lik e th e o th e r a sp e c ts of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s w el l

- r easone d opi ni on thatw e have al r eadyaddr es s ed, i t s l ogi c r egar di ng t he asses s m ent s , as al l oc a t e d b e t wee n t h e d o wns t r e a m op t
- o u tc l a i ma n t s a n d the i n i t i a l o p t
- o u ta n d P P H c l a i ma n t s , i s a s s a i l a b l e . E v e n i f we 50s u s p i c i o n s a l o n e c a n n o to v e r r i d e a f i n d i n g o f f a c tm a d e b y a di s t r i ctcour tj udge w ho has m anage d t he ca s e fory ear s and devel oped the r ecor d bei ng r evi ew ed. 55 cr edi tt he mat h empl oy ed byt he PM C and t he D i s t r i ctC our tand as s um e that , des pi t e the di s par at e as s es s m ent s , al l opt
- outand PPH cl ai ma n t s p a i d a r o u g h l ye q u a l p o r t i o n o f t h e f e e a war d, th e re is a so u n d a rg u m e n t th a t th e d o w n stre a m o p t-o u t cla im a n ts r ece i ved, fort he s ame pr ice, a g r eat ert angi bl e bene fi tfr om Cl a s s Co uns e l ’ s s e r vi c e s t ha n the i ni t i a l op t
- ou ta nd PPH c la im a n ts re c e iv e d

. T h e inq u ir y w e m u st m ak e, ho w ev er, i s n o t w h ethe r a por t i on of the D i s t r i ctC o u rt ’s l ogi c i s s ubj ectt o cr i t i ci s m , but w hethert he fe e aw ar d i t s el f cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on. C e rta in ly , lim its o n th e re a so n in g b e h in d a n a w a rd m a ylea d to t he conc l us i on t hatt he aw ar d i t s el f ca nnots t and. B utw hen, as i n t hi s ca se, the r es ul tcan otherw i s e be j us t i fi ed, w e ar e not c o m p e lle d to f

in d a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . C

f

. In re N

o r t el N etw orks C or

p. Sec. Li t ig. , 539 F. 3d 129, 1 3 4 (2d C i r . 2008) (a p p ro v in g f

e e a w a rd e v e n th o u g h th e d istric t co u rt n e g lec ted to us e aw ar ds gr ant ed i n s i m i l ar cas es as benchmar ks )

. W e l ook, t hen, to the b as i s of V al or i ’ s pr opor t i onal i t yat t ack t o s ee w hether t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der can be j us t i fi ed i n s pi t e of the at t ack.O urdi s s ent i ng col l eague char ges that , i n as s es s i ng the 51 p rop o rt ion ali tyo f th e f

ee aw ard u n d er B oei ng , w e have app l i ed the w rong b od yof law

. A s the d i ssentackn ow l edg es, h o w ev er, i t i s V alori w h o co n tend ed that the f ee aw ard vi ol at es t he pr i nci pl es es pous ed i n B oei ng . R atherthan se lec tin g th a t d e c isio n a s th e law to a p p ly , w e h a v e sim p ly re sp o n d e d to th e a rg u m e n t p re se n ted to u s. L ik e th e d iss e n t, w e have r ecogni zed thatthe comm on fund rul e and the c o m m o n b e n e f

it d o c trin e a re d istin c t an d , ind e e d , d if f e re n t in n u a n c e d w a y s . See s upr a n. 44. I n t hi s cas e, though, the d if f e re n c e s d o n o t h e lp V a lo ri. T h e d iss e n t is c o rre c t th a t in P ol ons ki , w e obs erved thatthe comm on benef i tdoctr i ne, as o ri g inallyfo rm u lat ed , req u ir ed the d istri ct co u rtto “e n su re t hatcos t s ar e pr opor t i onal l ys pr ead a m ong t he cl as s . ” 137 F. 3d at145 ( ci t i ng H

a ll v. C o le , 4 1 2 U

. S

. 1 , 5 ( 1 9 7 3 )

. We al s o not ed, how ever , t hatw e had “ r efi ned” the l anguage of t he t es ts o t hatw e now as k “w hetherthe bene fi t s m aybe t raced w i t h som e accu racy. . . [and ] w hetherthere i s a r eas onabl e bas i s forconfi dence thatthe cos t s m aybe s hi ft ed w i t h s om e pr eci s i on t o thos e bene fi t t i ng. ” Id

. ( ci t i ng Marshall v. U nited S t eelw orkers , 6 6 6 F

. 2 d 8 4 5 , 8 4 8 (3d C ir

. 1981) )

. T hatl anguage i s s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o t he B oei ng req u ir em en ts, w h ich, fo r th e re aso n s stated b elow , are s at i s fi ed her e. 56 V al or i co n t ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed the pr i nci pl es es pous ed i n Bo e i ng , 4 4 4 U

. S. 472. I n B oei ng , the 51 Supr eme C our tas s er t ed thati ti s pr opert o aw ard fe es t o a com m on ben efi t s at t orneyon l yw here “the b ene fi t s of cl ass r ecove r yhave ‘ been tr ace d w i t h s om e acc ur acy ’ and t he cos t s ofW e do noti m pl ythatther e ar e no l i m i t s on how the 52 bur den of a fee as s es s m entm aybe di s t r i but ed among i ndi vi dual s ors ubcl as s es w ho have r ece i ved a c om m on b e n e f i t
. B a s i c c o n c e r n s f

o rf a i r n e s s a n d d u e p r o c e s s a l w a ys ci r cumscr i be j udi ci al di s cr et i on, butthos e conc erns and the m es s age of B oei ngdo notpr ohi bi tthe r es ul tr eac hed bythe D i s t r i ctC our ther e. N ordo w e as k w hetherthe i ndi vi dual l aw y er s w ho 53 r epr es ent ed the dow ns t r eam opt
- outcl ai m ant s , on one hand, and the l aw y er s fori ni t i al opt
- outand PPH cl ai m ant s , on t he ot her , w er e equa l l ybur dened byC l as s C ouns el ’ s fee s . T he o p era ti v e q u esti o n is w h ethe r th e c o sts of rec o v eryw ere “shi ft ed w i t h som e exac t i tud e” t o the ben efi ci ari es of C l ass C ouns el ’ s eff

or t s – i

. e. , the part i es w ho r ecove r ed fr om

57 recovery hav e been ‘s hift ed w i t h s om e exacti tud e t o th ose benef i t i ng. ’ ” Id

. at480- 81 ( quot i ng A l yes ka Pi pel i ne , 42 1 U. S. at 26 5 n . 3 9 ). H o w ev er, ne ith er B oei ng n o r a n yo th e r a u th o rity r equi r es cour t s t o ens ur e t hat t he “cos t s of r ecove r y ” ar e s hi ft ed w i t h exac t i tude am ong t he var i ous s ubcl as s es of cl ai m ant s w ho b e n e f itte d f ro m c la s s c o u n s e l’ s e f

f o rt s . B oei ng and the other cas es defi ni ng t he cont ours o f the comm on fund doctr i ne ma n d a t e o n l y t h a t t h e f e e a war d e d t o c l a s s c o u n s e l w as r eas onabl e gi ven the bene fi tthatthes e att orney s pr ovi ded t o t he cl ass m em bers. 52

U n d er B oei ng , t he pert i nentques t i on i s no t w hatt he i ni t i al opt
- out and P PH cl ai m ant pai d i n fee s r el at i ve t o w hatt he dow ns t r eam opt
- out cl ai m ant s pai d. R ather , i ti s w hetherthe 53W y e th

. See Vi ncent v. H ughes A i rW

es t , I nc. , 557 F. 2d 759, 770 ( 9t h C i r . 1977) ( appr ovi ng fee aw ar d forcl as s couns el d ra w n f ro m in d iv id u a l cla im a n ts’ a tto rn e y s in p a rt b e c a u se it w as pr opor t i onat e t o t he bene fi tcl as s couns el pr ovi ded t o t he c la im a n ts ). W e n o te th a t in re

jec tin g V a lo ri’s p ro p o rtio n a lity 54 o b jec tio n , the D istric t C o u rt d id o b se rv e , “th e n e c e ss ityto cons i ders epar at el yanyaw ar ds underthe C l as s A ct i on S et t l em ent and an yaw ard from the M D L

. . . F ee and C ost A ccount [, ] ” and the fa ctthat“[t ] he C l as s A ct i on Set t l ement and the M D L pl ays i gni fi cant l ydi ffe r entr ol es and ca nnot r eal l ybe compar ed. ” D i et D r ugs , 5 5 3 F. Su p p . 2 d a t4 9 5

. To t he ext entt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as concl udi ng, as w e do, that t he overr i di ng ques t i on i s notone of c om par i s on among t he vari ou s cat ego ri es of set t l i ng plai nti ffs bu ti nst ead is fai rness w i t hi n t he ca t egor i es and over al l fai r nes s , w e ent i r el yagr ee w i t h t hatl ogi c. 58 in itia l o p t- o u t a n d P P H c la im a n ts p a id , in a n a b s o lu te s e n s e , a fai ramount fort he bene fi tof C l as s C ouns el ’ s s ervi ces . T he 54 a n s we rt o t h a tq u e s t i o n , i n o u r v i e w, i s a d e f i n i t e “ y e s . ” As not ed above , t he D i s t r i ctC our t f o u n d t hatC l as s C ouns el s ubs t ant i al l yenhanc ed al l clai m ant s ’ chanc es forr ecove r yby amass i ng m eani ngful di s covery , d raw ing W y eth t o t he bar gai ni ng t abl e, and negot i at i ng w i t h W y eth a compr ehens i ve s et t l ementt hatevi n c ed the company ’ s acut e i nt er es ti n r es ol vi ng t he cl ai m s agai ns t i t
. A ppel l ant s have not demons tr ated t hat th e se fi nd i ng s w ere cl earl yerr on eou s. Indeed , theyare am p ly s uppor ted b y t he r ecor d. G i ven al l t hatt he i ni t i al opt
- outand59 PPH cl ai m ant s r ece i ved, the 6% & 4% A s sess m entl evi ed on t heir recoveri es w as reas on able, and , t hu s, i tsat i sfi es B oei ng ’s c h a r g e t h a tc o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s b e tr a c e d w i t h s o m e a c c u r a c y.
A nyl ing eri ng conce r n t hatthe fe e aw ar d i m pos ed a di s pr op ort i on a t e l yhe a vy bu r de n on t he i ni t i a l op t
- ou t a nd PPH cl ai m ant s s hr i nks w hen the p roport i onal i t yi s s ue i s cons i der ed i n t he cont extof t he fe e aw ar d as a w hol e. A l l ocat i ng t he bur den of the aw ar d among the cl ai m ant s w as but one partof the extr aor di nar i l ycompl i cated endea vorof det erm i ni ng an a p p ro p r ia te a w a rd in th is m a ss iv e M D L . E v e n th e d isc re te ques t i on of how t o al l ocat e the aw ar d w as fr aughtw i t h compl ex cons i der at i ons , i ncl udi ng how t o t r eat t he dow ns t r eam o p t- out cl ai m ant s , w ho r ecove r ed out s i de t he cont ext of t he s ett l ement but sti l l r ece i ved val uabl e bene fi t s undert he Set t l ement A g re e m e n t, a n d w h a t m e a su re s, if a n y , sh o u ld b e u se d to pr eventC l as s C o u n s el fr om over - r ecove r i ng – vi a the as s es s m ent s and the Set t l ementA ccount s

– fo r t hei rs ervi ces th a t b e n e f

itt e d th e d o w n stre a m o p t-o u t c laim a n ts. It w o u ld , in t hi s c a s e , b e u n wi s e t o v a c a t e th e e n t i r e a war d b a s e d s o l e l yon h o w it w a s a llo c a ted , w h e n th e a w a rd is p e rsu a siv e lyju stif ied in a ll o th e r re sp e c ts a n d is ju stif iab le in th is o n e p ro b lem a tic re s p e c t. M o reo v er , even i f w e w er e i ncl i ned t o vaca t e the fe e aw ard b ase d o n the a ll o ca ti o n , itis no t clea r to us tha t V alori’s re q u e ste d re lief

– a re m a n d to th e D istr ic t C o u rt w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o r eal l ocat e the aw ar d – w oul d be fe as i bl e. R educi ng t he as s es s m ent on t he dow ns tr eam opt
- outr ecove r i es r equi r ed the D i s t r ict C our tt o or derr efunds t ot al i ng m or e than60 $52 m i l l i on t o num er ous l aw fi r m s t hat , bypr i orcour tor der , had paid the 6 % & 4% A sses sm ents i nto the M D L F ee and C ost A ccount
. M ont hs l at er , t hos e re funds ar e not l i kel yt o be s i t t i ng in the b an k ac co u n ts o f th e law firm s tha t r ec eive d them

. It s eems l i kel yt hat t axes have be en pai d, r efe r r al couns el has been c o m p e n sa ted , an d , g e n e ra llysp e a k in g , the r e f u n d s h a v e , in a ll or i n par t , w or ked thei rw ayt hr ough the cha nnel s of comm er ce a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , wo u l d b e d i f f i c u l tf o rth e Co u r tt o r e c l a i m. W e a lso f

in d it s ig n if

ica n t – a n d su rp risin g – th a t V a lo ri, w ho has ar gued s o vi gor ous l y t hat t he al l ocat i on i s unfai r , never s ought a st ayof the r efund di s t r i but i on pendi ng appea l

. H ad V al or i m oved fora s t ay , and had the C our tgr ant ed hi s m ot i on, t he pr act i cal di ffi cul t i es asso ci at ed w i t h admi ni s t er i ng t he r edi s t r i but i on t hathe r eques t s w oul d be al l evi at ed. W hen p re ss e d o n th e m a tter d u rin g o ra l ar g u m e n t, V a lo ri a ss e rte d th a t, in o rd e r to re q u e st a sta y , h e w o u ld h a v e h a d to p o st a s uper s edea s bond – a bond that , gi ven the enorm ous amount of m o n e ya t issu e in th is c a se , h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a b le to a f f o rd – so th e C o u rt p ro b a b lyw o u ld n o t h a v e g ra n ted h is r eques tanyw ay . T hatdefe at i s ts t ance i s t oo con v en i entan excus e. A l t hough Fed. R

. C i v. P

. 62( d) s t at es t hat“[i ] f an appea l i s t aken, t he appel l ant m ay obt ai n a st aybys uper s edea s bond, ” court s m ay for ego t hat r equi r ement w hen ther e ar e other m e a n s to s e c u re th e ju d g m e n t c re d ito r’ s in te re s ts
. S ee , e .g ., A r ban v. W

es tP ub. C or

p. , 345 F. 3d 390, 4 0 9 (6th C i r . 2003) ( e x p r e s s i n g t h e v i e w t h a t R u l e 6 2 ( d ) , w h i c h s p e a k s t o s t a ys g ra n ted a s a m a tter o f

rig h t, do e s n o t co n stra in d istric t co u rts f ro m g ra n tin g s ta y s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e ir d isc re tio n ); Fed. P resc ripti o n S erv . , Inc

. v. A m . P h a rm . A ss’n , 636 F. 2d 755, 759 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1 9 8 0 ) (sam e); Mu n o z v . C ity o f P h ila

. , 537 F. Supp. 2dW e ther efor e have no occa s i on t o deci de w hetherthe 55 doctr i ne of e qui t abl e moot nes s , w hi ch “di ct at es thatan appe al sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d , ev e n if a c o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n a n d is in a pos i t i on t o gr antr el i ef, i f ‘ i m pl ement at i on of thatr el i ef w oul d be i nequi t abl e, ’ ” I n r e Zeni th E l ectr oni cs C or p. , 329 F. 3d 338, 343 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng I n r e PW S H oldi ng C or p. , 228 F. 3d 224, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ) , appl i es out s i de the b an k rup tcyco n text in w h ich it i s typ icall yinv o k ed o r, m o re s p e c if ic a lly, to a c a s e s u c h a s th is o n e . 61 749, 751- 52 ( E

. D

. Pa. 2008) ( gr ant i ng a s t ayw i t houtr equi r i ng a bond w her e the movanthad s uffi ci entfunds to pa ythe j udgm entagai ns ti tand t her e w as “no basi s t o t hi nk thatpr om pt paym ent[w oul d] nott ake p l ace s houl d t he j udgm entbe s us t ai ned on appe al ”)

. H er e, the ass es s m ent s and fees aw ar ded p u rsu a n t to th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w e re m a in tain e d in e sc ro w a c c o u n ts u n d e r t h e D is trict C o u rt’s c o n tro l. Itis there fo re q u it e p o ssible, perh ap s ev en li k ely, that the C o u rt w oul d have w ai ved the bond r equi r ementorreq ui r ed a s ubs t ant i al l yred u ce d bond i n t hi s cas e. A l l of thatbei ng s ai d, w e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e r p ra c tica l d if f ic u lti e s in admi ni s t er i ng a re al l ocat i on, or V al or i ’ s i nact i on i n att empt i ng t o m i t igat e thos e di ffi cul t i es , for ecl os e us fr om r emandi ng t he m at t er . A s not ed above , w e do notbel i eve thatthe D i s t r i ct

55 C our t ’ s al l ocat i o n, vi ew ed i n cont ext , cons t i tut es an abus e of d is c re tio n .Itis un clea r fro m the re co rd w h ythe D istri ct C o u rt 56 ru le d o n H a rr is ’s m o tio n to re m a n d a f te r d is m is s in g th e c a s e . 62 3

. A sses sm ent on the H arris C ase A c c o rd in g to R iep e n , the M D L a ss e ss m e n t, ev e n if p ro p e rlya p p lied to th e in iti a l o p t-o u t a n d P P H p lain tiff s, sh o u ld no t hav e been app l i ed t o the r ecov ery of hi s cl i ent Jana H a rris becau se her case di d n ot bel on g in fed e ra l cou rti n the fi rs t p lac e . In F e b ru a ry1 9 9 9 , R iep e n f ield su it i n a K a n sa s s tate cour t o n t h e b e h a l f o f Harr i s , a c i t i z e n o f Kan s a s . Am ong t he defe ndant s named i n t he s ui t w as a pharm acy w i t h i t s pr i nci pal pl ac e o f b us i nes s i n K ans as . W y eth ar gued thatthe pharm acy w a s f r a u d u len tlyjo in e d to d e f e a t re m o v a l, an d it p ro c e e d e d to f ile a n o tice o f

re m o v a l to sh if

t th e c a se to f

e d e ra l co u rt. R i epen’ s co- couns el fi l ed a mot i on t o r emand, butbefor e the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

K a n sa s c o u ld ru le on the m ot i on, t he ca s e w as t r ans ferr ed t o t he East ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia a s p a rt o f th e M D L . H a rris s e ttl e d h e r c a se w ith W y eth, and the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce pur s uantt o a m o ti o n th a t R iepe n d id n o t op p o se, be fo re the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the r emand m ot i on on D ece m ber7, 2000. 56
“I ti s w el l

- s et t l ed l aw thats ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on can be cha l l enged a tanypoi ntbefor e fi nal j udgm ent , ” I n r e Kais er G r oup I nt er n. I nc. , 399 F. 3d 558, 565 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (cit at i on om i t t ed) , butt he nec es s arycor ol l aryi s thats ubj ectm att er c a n n o t b e c h a lle n g e d a f

te r s u c h ju d g m e n t is e n te re d

. See H odge v. H odge , 621 F. 2d 590, 592 ( 3d C i r . 1980) ( “I tw as s ett l ed l ongIt is irre lev a n t w h e th e r, as R iep e n c laim s, h e p ro p e rly 57 p re se rv e d th e ju risd ictio n a l issu e f o r a p p e a l. T h is is n o t a m at t erof w ai ver . R ather , the ques t i on i s w hetherthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overH arr i s ’ s cas e ca n be c h a llen g e d a t all a t th is s tag e o f lit ig a tio n , an d th e a n sw e r is it c a n n o t. 63 ago . . . thatw hen a f

eder al courtpr ocee ds t o fin al j udgm enton t he m eri t s, t he is sue of

subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on i s re s ju d ica ta even though i tw as notl i t i gat ed .

. . . ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) )

. H er e, fi nal j udgm entw as en te r ed i n H arr i s ’ s cas e w hen the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d is m is s e d it w ith p re ju d ic e . R i epen a r gues t hatt he matt eri s s t i l l open bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our tr et ai ned the abi l i t y to ex em pthi m fr om t he as s es s me n tu n t i l i ti s s u e d i t s f i n a l , a p p e a l a b l e a t t o r n e y s ’ f ee or deri n J ul y 2008. B utauthor i t yfr om the Supr eme C our tand o u r C o u rt m a k e s c lea r th a t a d e c isio n o n th e m e rits is s e p a ra te f ro m o rd e rs r e g a rd in g a tto rn e y s’ f e e s fo r th e p u rp o se s o f

f in a lity a n d a p p e a la b ility. See W hi t e v. N

. H

. D ept
. of

E m pl oym ent

Sec. , 4 5 5 U .S . 4 4 5 , 4 5 1 -5 2 (1 9 8 2 ) (“ [ A ] re q u e s t f o r a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s ... r ai s es l egal i s s ues col l at er al t o” and “ s epar at e fr om ” the dec i s i on o n th e m e rits.); I

n r e C ol on , 941 F. 2d 242, 245 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( “tr eat [i ng] at t or ney s ’ fee s apartfr om t he mer i t s forpurpos es of appea l ”)

. T hus , w hi l e R i epen m ay chal l enge t he att orney s ’ fee s and costasses sm ents that w ere i m po sed on him , he cann ot do so byat t acki ng s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct ion on a ca s e thatw as di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce a l m os tt en y ear s ago. 5764 I I I . C oncl usi on T he D i s t r i ctC our ts etfor t h i t s r eas oni ng i n s uppor t of the fee aw ar d i n a ca r eful opi ni on that gi ves us a more than s uffi ci entbas i s forr evi ew . I templ oy ed tr ans par entpr ocedur es and undert ook a tho r ough and pr operanal y s i s – bas ed on the appr opr i at e i nform at i on – i n det erm i ni ng t he aw ar d. G i ven the du rat i on of the l i t i gati on and the ex t raor dinaryeffo rt s of C l ass C ouns el , t he amountof the aw ar d, though extr aor di nar i l yl ar ge, i s no t e x c e s s i v e i n t h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y c a s e , a n d whi l e we ha ve so m e re se rv a tio n s a b o u t th e a llo c a tio n o f th e a ss e ss m e n ts b e tw e e n th e d o w n stre a m o p t-o u t cla im a n ts a n d th e in iti a l o p to u t a n d P P H c laim a n ts, w e d o n o t b e liev e th e C o u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n in ap p o rt ion ing the a w ard as itd id. W e w il l th ere fo re a f f ir m th e f in a l f e e a w a rd

.65 A M B R O , C ir cu itJu d g e, dissen ti n g in p art I j oi n J udge Jor dan’ s exce l l ent opi ni on on al l poi nt s s ave o n e

— I b e liev e th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re ti o n in as s es s i ng t he “dow ns t r eam opt
- out ” pl ai nt i ffs ata l ow err at e for t he ca s e- w i de s ervi ces pr ovi ded bythe pl ai nt i ffs ’ m anage m ent comm i t t ee ( t he “PM C ”) t han i t as s es s ed the “i ni t i al opt
- out ” and p rim a ryp u lm o n a ryh yp e rte n sio n (“ P P H ” ) p lain tiff s. I w o u ld t her efor e gr antt he r eques tof appe l l ant s

— Fr eedl and, Fa rm er, R u ss o , B e h re n & S h e ller a n d R a ym o n d V a lo ri P .A . (co llec tiv e ly “V al or i”)— t o vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derr efundi ng fee s exclusi velyt o the dow nst ream op t -out plai nti ffs, and rem and so t hatt h e ref

u n d s can be r edi s t r i but ed p ro ra ta t o al l pl ai nt i ffs charged for the P M C ’s services

. T o r evi ew , the D i s t r i ctC our taw ar ded C l as s C ouns el a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s f o r a ss istin g in th e re c o v e rie s o f tw o se p a ra te s e ts of pl ai nt i ffs w hom i t s m ember s di d notr epr es ent : ( 1) pl ai nt i ffs w h o r e c o v e r e d w it h in th e c la s s a c ti o n ( r e c o v e r ie s th a t es se n tially i nvol ved provi ng el i gi bi l i t y for t he var i ous funds cr eat ed bythe Set t l ementA gr eementand i t s s ubs equent amendm ent s ) ; and ( 2) plai nti ffs w ho recovered ou t si de the cl ass act i on (butw ho se r ecove r i es w er e, acc or di ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ai ded s ubs t ant i al l ybyt he PM C ’ s cas e- w i de s ervi ces )

. T he l att ers et of pl ai nt i ffs i ncl uded thr ee diffe r entgr oups : PPH pl ai nt i ffs (w h o se c lai m s w ere n o t cov ere d b y the S ett lem en t A g ree m en t) , i ni t i al opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs ( w ho opt ed out o f the cl as s act i on ent i r el yand pur s ued i ndi vi dual t ort act i ons agai ns tW y eth) , and dow ns t r eam o p t
- outpl ai nt i ffs ( w ho exer ci s ed thei ropt
- out r i ght s aft err ec eivi ng s om e bene fi t s fr om t he Sett l ementT h e 9 % a n d 6 % a ss e ss m e n ts w e re lev ied e x c lu siv e ly 58 on pl ai nt i ffs w ho had r ecove r ed out s i de the cl as s act i on. F or ease of refer ence, I referhereaft er t o these 59 a s s e s s m e n ts a s th e “ P M C f e e s .” In iti a lly , C las s C o u n se l ar g u e d th a t a llof the PM C fee s 60 as s es s ed aga i ns tt he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs s houl d be reb ated

. F o r th e re aso n s d iscu ssed b elow , the D istri ct C o u rt re jec ted th a t as p e c t o f

th e p ro p o sa l. 66 A gr eementand w i t h r es pect t o w hom W y eth agr eed, as partof t he Set t l ementA gr eement , t o r el i nqui s h anys ta tut e- ofl i m i t at ion s d ef

en ses in ex ch an g e f

o r th o se p lai n ti ff

s bei ng barr ed fro m see k ing p u n it ive d am ag es). I n 1998 , th e D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed W y eth t o w i t hhol d 9% of al l paym ent s m ade t o fede r al di et drug pl ai nt i ffs ( w hos e ca s es had pas s ed thr ough t hat C our t pur s uant t o t he di r ect i ons of the Ju d icia l P a n e l f

o r M u lti d istric t L iti g a tio n ) a n d 6 % o f a ll p a yme n t s ma d e t o p l a i n t i f f s i n c o o r d i n a t e d s t a t e c a s e s . T he 58 m on eyw i t hh el d w as pl aced int o the “M D L F e e a nd C ost A c c o u n t,” w ith th e id e a th a t it w o u ld late r b e u se d to com pen sat e C l ass C ou nsel for the P M C ’s case- w i de servi ces. 59 I n 2 0 0 2 , t h e C o u r t l o w e r e d th o s e p e r c e n t a g e s t o 6 % a n d 4 %, r es pect i vel y . I n 2008 ( i n one of the or der s befor e us now ) , the C our tr at i fi ed C l as s C o u n sel ’ s pr opos al t o r efund a por t i on of t he dow n str ea m opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs ’ PM C fee s w hi l e r efundi ng not h i n g t o t h e i n i t i a l o p t
- o u t o r PP H p l a i n t i f f s . Th e r es ul t of 60 t hat r efund w as t hatt he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs ended upT he C our t ’ s r at i onal e forat t r i but i ng hal f of the 61 r ecove r yof the dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs t o t he Set t l ementA gr eementw as that , beca us e the Set t l ement s ecur ed a w ai verfr om W y eth of anys t atut e of l i m i t at i ons 67 as s es s ed atr at es of ( r es pect i vel y ) 2% and 1. 33% , w hi l e the other plai nti ffs subjectt o P M C fees w ere kept at6% and 4%

. C l ass C o u n se l m ade the refund propo sal pu rs uan tt o an agreem ent i t had r eac hed pr i or t o s ubm i t t i ng i t s fi nal fee pet i t i on w i t h t he s ocal l ed “M aj orFi l er s , ” a gr oup t hati ncl uded l aw y er s for appr oxi m at el y97% of t he dow ns t r eam opt
- out pl ai nt i ffs ( al ong w i t h l aw y er s fora l ar ge numberof pl ai nt i ffs w ho r ecove r ed w i t hi n t he cl as s act i on)

. A s par tof thatagr eement , t he M aj or F i l ers pledged t o r efrai n fr om l od ging any obj ect i on s to C lass C ouns el ’ s s ubs equentfee pet i t i on. O n i t s fac e, i ts eems s us pi ci ous t hatt he one gr oup t hat w as charged les s for the P M C ’s cl ass- w i de servi ces al so h a p p e n e d to b e th e o n e g ro u p th a t re a c h e d a n o u tsid e d e a l w ith C l as s C ouns el

. N onethe l es s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tj us t i fi ed s ubj ect i ng t he dow ns t r eam opt
- out p lai nt i ffs t o the l ow er asse ssm en t th ro u g h th e f o ll o w ing ch ain o f re aso n ing

. It r eas oned, fi r s t , t hat , beca use the p urpos e of the PM C fee s w as t o compensa t e C l as s C ouns el forbenef i t s pr ovi ded t o thos e w ho recovered ou t si de the Se t t l em ent A greem ent, i t cou l d n ot as sess PM C fee s on r ecove r i es t hat w er e the pr oductof the Set t l ement A gr eement
. T he C our tt hen i nferr ed that , beca us e i n cal cul at i ng t he val ue of the Set t l ementA gr eementi t h ad cr edi t ed that A gr eementw i t h pr oduci ng hal f of the $2. 3 bi l l i on r ecove r ed by t he dow ns t r eam opt
- outp la i nt i ffs , i tw oul d be i m pr operfor 61defe ns es agai ns tt he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs , thi s w as s ubs t ant i al l yr es pons i bl e forthos e r ecove r i es , even though t heyt echni cal l yoccurr ed out s i de the fr amew or k of the S e ttl e m e n t. T he one e xcept i on i s that , as m ent i oned i n not e 60 62 a b o v e , the f

e e p e tit io n u rg e d th e D istric t C o u rt to a ttribu te a ll of the dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs ’ r ecove r yt o t he Set t l ementA gr eementand, acc or di ngl y , t o r ebat e al l of the P M C fe es a sses sed o n tho se p lai n ti ff s. B ec au se th e C o u rt det erm i ned thatonl yhal f of the dow ns t r eam opt
- out pl ai nt i ffs ’ r ecove r ycoul d fai r l ybe cr edi t ed t o t he Set t l ement A g re e m e n t, i t d id n o t g o a s f a r a s u rg e d b yC las s C o u n se l. 68 C las s C o u n se l to re c e iv e P M C f e e s c o rre sp o n d in g to th e f u ll amount r ecove r ed byt he dow ns t r eam opt
- out pl ai nt i ffs

. Fr om t hat , t he C our tconcl uded thati ts houl d r efund t he exc es s back t o t he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs

. I n t aki ng t his p at h, t he D i stri ctC ou rtw as ( l argel y ) adopti ng th e reas on i ng that C l ass C ouns el had l ai d outi n i t s fee pet i t i on. 62
A s t he maj or i t yr ecogni zes , everys t ep i n the D i s t ri ct C our t ’ s rea so n ing makes s ens e, exce ptt he l as t
. I ti s t rue that Cl a s s Cou n s e l ’ s a war d f o rth e Se t t l e me n tAgr e e me n ti n c l uded compensa t i on forcr eati n g hal f the val ue r ecove r ed bythe dow ns t r eam opt
- ou ts p lai nt i ffs

. B utthe moneyt o fund that compensa t i on di d notcome outof the dow ns t r eam opt
- out pl ai nti ffs ’ r ecove r y( even though i tw as compensa t i on for enab li n g p ar tof thatr ecove r y )

. R ather , as C l as s C ouns el conce ded dur i ng or al ar gum ent , that m o n ey came outof theA s th e m a jo rityn o tes , C las s C o u n se l co n ten d s th a t, i n 63 th e e n d , the d o w n stre a m o p t-o u t p lain tiff s w e re e ss e n tially charged t he sam e as the ini t i al op t -outand P P H plai nti ffs, a lb e it th ro u g h a d if

f e re n t ro u te. I a m sk e p tica l. F o r th a t to have ha ppened, W y eth, i n s ett l i ng the dow ns t r eam opt
- out c a se s, n e e d e d to h a v e p ric e d in th e a tto rn e y s’ f e e s th a t w o u ld l at erbe t aken outof the Fund A L egal Fees E s cr ow A ccount t o co m pen sat e C l ass C ou nsel for half of t he v al ue o f t ho se s e t t l e me n t s . As W y e t h h a d n o wa yo f k n o wi n g a tth e t i me t hat fees w ou l d b e asses sed i n thatm ann er, I fi nd C l ass C o u n sel’s co n tention u n co n v incin g (t o saythe lea st)

. 69 $200 m i l l i on W y eth depos i t ed into the Fund A L egal Fees E s cr ow A ccount
. A ccor di ngl y , w hi l e i tw as appr opr i at e forthe C our tt o be conc erned aboutautho ri zing doubl e di ppi ng ( by al l ow i ng C l as s C ouns el t o r ecove rt w ice, i n tw o di ffe r ent capa ci t i es , forenabl i ng the s ame r ecove r y ) , ther e w as no corr es pondi ng dan g er t hatt he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs w oul d be doubl e- char ged. A s s uch, the ef fe ct of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r efund or der w as t hat t he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs ended up bei ng char ged l es s for t he PM C ’ s cas e- w i de s ervi ces t han w er e the othergr oups s ubj ectt o PM C fee s , des pi te the 63 fa ct t hatt he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs r ece i ved no fe w er benefi ts f

r om t hos e s ervi ces , and, over al l , cert ai nl yr ece i ved m or e fr om t he effor t s of C l as s C ouns el ( s i nce theybenef i t t ed b o th f rom the S ett lem en t A g ree m en t and the P M C ’s serv ices). T he m aj ori t yno nethel ess h olds that i tw as not an abu se of di s cr et i on for t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o or dert he exc es s PM C fee s r efunde d s ol el yt o t he dow ns t r eam opt
- out pl ai nt i ffs , r athert hanM ycol l eague s conce de that“[b] as i c conc erns for 64 fai rnes s and due pr oces s al w ay s ci r cumscr i be j udi ci al d is c re tio n . . . .” M a

j. O p . a t 5 7 n .5 2 . T h e irp o in t is , I bel i eve, t hatt her e i s nothi ng i n t he doctr i ne j us t i fy i ng the as s es s m entof the PM C fee s thatr equi r es the ki nd of p ro p o rt io n a lity d e m a n d e d b yV a lo ri . A s e x p la in e d b e lo w , I di s agr ee. 70 (a s V a lo ri u rg e s u s to d o h e re ) d istrib u tin g th e re f u n d s a m o n g a ll th o se a ss e ss e d su c h f

e e s. T h e m a

jo rity ’s r e a so n in g e ss e n tially i s t hat the ap p l i cabl e bodyof l aw m er el yr equi r es thatthe fe es as s es s ed aga i ns ta part i cul arbenef i ci arybe pr opor t i onal t o w hat th a t b e n e f

icia ryre c e iv e d , n o t th a t th e f e e s b e p ro p o r tio n a l to t hos e as s es s ed agai ns t other benef i ci ar i es . O n t hat basi s, t he m ajorityco n clud es th at th ere w as n o a b u s e o f d iscreti o n h ere beca us e the PM C fee s as s es s ed aga i ns tthe i n it i al opt
- outand PPH pl ai nt i ffs w er e pr opor t i onal t o t he bene fi t s t heyrecei ved f ro m th e P M C ’s c a se -w id e se rv ice s, lea v in g th o se g ro u p s w ith b a sic a llyn o c a u se f

o r c o m p lain t. I agr ee that , vi ew ed fr om the vant age poi ntm er el yof the par t i cul arbenef

i t s t he i ni t i al opt
- outand PPH p lai nt i ffs re c e iv e d , th e P M C f

e e s a s s e s s e d a g a in s t th e m w e re f a ir . I di s agr ee, how ever , t hatt hat i s t he onl yl egal l yr el evantvant age p o in t. 64
For s t ar t er s , I bel i eve t hat t he m aj or i t y appl i ed t he w r ong b o d yo f l a w. Th e yd e r i v e th e i rc o n c l u s i o n f r o m Bo e i n gC o. v. V an G em ert , 444 U

. S. 472 ( 1980) , a ca s e thatl ay s outthe cont our s of the “c om m o n fund doctr i ne. ” B oei ng , as t heI d o , h o w e v e r, b e liev e th a t su c h a re q u ire m e n t is 65 i m pl i ci ti n B oei ngb a se d o n th e f o llo w in g tw o p a ss a g e s. F irst, i n expl ai ni ng t he r at i onal e forthe comm on fund doctr i ne, the B oei ngC o u r tr e a s o n e d th i s w a y: T he [c om m on fund] doctr i ne r es t s on t he p e rc e p tio n th a t p e rso n s w h o o b tain th e b e n e f it o f a law su itw ith o u t con tr ibu ti n g to it s co sts are u n justl yen ri ch ed at th e su cc essf u l l it igan t’ s e x p e n se . Ju risd ictio n o v e r th e f u n d in v o lv e d in th e lit ig a tio n a llo w s a c o u rt to p re v e n t th is i neq uitybyasses si ng at t orney [s’ ] fees agai nst th e e n tir e f

u n d , thus s

pr eadi ng f

ees pr opor t i onal l

y am ong thos e bene

f i t t ed by the su it

. 4 4 4 U .S . a t 4 7 8 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). Second, i n expl ai ni ng how the doctr i ne w or ks i n pr act i ce, the C o u rt p ro v id e d th is a c c o u n t: A l t hough t he ful l val ue of the bene fi tt o eac h abs ent ee [ cl as s ] m embercannotbe det erm i ned unt i l he pr es ent s hi s cl ai m , a fe e aw ar ded agai ns tt he ent i r e . . . fund w i l l s hi ftthe cos t s of l i t i gat i on t o eac h abs ent ee i n the ex act 71 m aj or i ty n ot es , does notar t i cul at e an e xpl i ci tr equi r ementthat a dis t ric t c o u rt , i n aw ardi ng at t orney s’ fees, ensure t hat tho se fee s ar e a l l o c a t e d p r o p o r t i o n a l l ya c r o s s th e e n t i r e c l a s s of b e n e f icia rie s. Y e t th e P M C f e e s w e re n o t as se ss e d p u rsu a n t to 65p ro p o rtio n th a t th e v a lu e o f h is c la im b e a rs to the total r ecove ry . I d. at479 ( emphasi s added)

. I tw i l l onl ybe the ca s e thateac h cl as s m emberw ho acc es s es a comm on fund w i l l be cha r ged i n “exa ctpr opor t i on t hatthe val ue of hi s cl ai m bear s t o t he t ot al r ecove r y ” i f eve r ycl as s m ember ’ s r ecove r yfr om the f u n d is a ss e ss e d a t th e sa m e ra te ( sin c e th a t is th e o n lyw a yto ens ur e thata cl as s m emberw ho r ecove r s m or e than another cl as s m emberw i l l nece s s ar i l ypaym or e i n fee s )

. T hus , even w e re it th e c a se th a t B oei nga p p lied to th e P M C f e e s (w h ich it d o e s n o t), th e d isp ro p o rtio n a l allo c a tio n o f th o se f e e s w o u ld s t i l l , I bel i eve, be an a bus e of di s cr et i on. I n fai r nes s t o t he maj or i t y , V al or i di d ci t e B oei ngin 66 su p p o rt o f

its p ro p o rtio n a litya rg u m e n t.

72 the co m m o n fu n d d o ctri n e. T h at d o ctri n e ap p li es on lyw h ere 66 ( as i n t he ca s e of the aw ar d fort he Sett l ementA gr eement ) fee s ar e bei ng aw ar ded as compensa t i on forgi vi ng “ea ch mem berof a c e rtifie d c las s . . . a n u n d is p u ted a n d m a th e m a tica lly as cert ai nabl e cl ai m t o part o f a lum p- s um . ” I d. at479. T he PM C fee s , on t he other h an d, w er e notaw ar ded forcr eat i ng a fund fr om w hi ch the di ff ere n t opt
- outand PPH pl ai nt i ffs r ecove r ed. R ather , t heyw er e aw ar ded forcr eat i ng di ffus e, nonm on et ary , ben efi t s ( e. g. , d isc o v e rym a ter ials , d ra w in g W y e th to th e b a r g a i n i n g ta b le , etc. ) thathel ped thos e pl ai nt i ffs r ecove r out s i de the cl as s act i on. A s s uch, theyw er e aw ar ded pur s uant t o t he “c om m on benef

i t doctr i ne, ” w hi ch r equi r es onl yt hatt he par t y r ece i vi ng t he at t or ney s ’ fee s have confe r r ed a “ s ubs t ant i alM yvi ew does notchange even i f, as C l as s C ouns el 67 ur ges , w e thi nk of the PM C fee s as havi ng been a s s es s ed pu rs uan tt o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s broad m anag eri al po w ers , r athert han the comm on benef i tdoctr i ne. B eca us e as s es s i ng f e e s s u c h a s th e o n e s a t issu e h e re in v o lv e s c h a rg in g lit ig a n ts f o r b e n e f its th e ym a yh a v e o n ly in v o lu n ta ri ly re c e iv e d , I bel i eve the fa i r nes s conce r ns thatal w ay s cabi n a di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n w e ig h e s p e c ia lly h e a v ily in th is c o n te x t. I w o u ld th u s f

in d a n a b u se o f

d isc re tio n e v e n w e re w e to concl ude thatt he fe es w er e as s es s ed undernei t herthe comm on fund doctr i ne northe comm on benef i tdoctr i ne. 73 ben efi t ” on “mem ber s of an a s cert ai nabl e cl as s , ” nott hatt he b e n e f it it c o n f e rr e d c re a te s a re c o v e ry f u n d

. P o l o n s k i v . T

r u mp T aj M ah al Assocs. , 1 3 7 F

. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e re a so n th is d istin c tio n m a tters is th a t itis a n e x p licit r equi r ementof the comm o n benef i tdoctr i ne that , i n aw ar di ng fee s , a “c our t
. . . ens ur e thatthe cos t s ar e pr opor t i onal l ys pr ead among t hatcl as s . ” I

d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o do t hather e, and, acc or di ngl y , I bel i eve i tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. 67
I n addi t i on, I am m or e tr oubl ed than mycol l eague s that t he D i s t r i ctC our t arr i ved at t he l ow err at e of a s s es s m entforthe dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs i n r es pons e t o an agr eement reached b et w een C l ass C ou ns e l and a group , the M aj or Fil ers , th a t in c lu d e d a lm o s t a ll th e d o w n s tr e a m o p t- o u t p la in tif f s . I bel i eve that , p rese n t ed w i t h a pr opos al t hatbenef i t t ed a gr oup t hatw as a party to the pr opos al ( t he dow ns t r eam opt
- out pl ai nt i ffs ) att he expe ns e of gr oup t hatw as nota part yt o i t( t he74 i ni t i al opt
- outand PPH p l ai nt i ffs ) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o s ubj ectt hatprop o s al t o extr a s crut i ny . T hatthe D istri ct C o u rt ad o p ted C lass C o u n sel’s flaw ed rea so n ing m o re orl es s i n ful l s ugges t s t o m e thats uch s crut i nyw as notappl i ed. T hat , t oo, w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. M ysu sp ic io n is th at w h at i s d ri v ing the m ajority ’s r el uct ance t o fi nd an abus e of di s cr et i on her e ( des pi t e agr eei ng t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r eas oni ng w as fl aw ed) i s i t s bel i ef that i tw oul d be a s hame “t o vaca t e t he ent i r e aw ar d bas ed s ol el yon h o w it w a s a llo c a ted , w h e n th e a w a rd is p e rsu a siv e lyju stif ied in al l ot h er resp ec ts. ” M aj

. O p. at59. I s har e the vi ew thatthe problem I am focu si ng on repr esent s, at m ost , a m i no r bl em i sh i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ot h erw i s e exc el l ent , and per s uas i ve, t r eatm entof an e xt r aor di nar i l ydi ffi cul t cas e. B ut I do notagr ee t hatr ect i fy ing the di s pr opor t i onat e al l ocat i on of the PM C fee s re q u ire s a n yth in g so d ra stic a s v a c a tin g th e e n tire a w a rd . A ll t hat ne e d s t o b e v a c a t e d i s t h e s e p a r a t e o r d e rr e f u n d i n g t he exce s s PM C fee s excl us i vel yt o the dow ns t r eam opt
- out plai nti ffs. T hat w ou l d leave t he en t i re a w ard t o C l ass C ouns el

— bot h t he $43 4, 511, 777. 33 i tr ece i ved fort he Se t t l e mentA gr e e menta nd t he $1 33 , 16 1, 45 5 i t r e c e i ve d i n PM C fee s

— unt ouched. I agr ee thatther e mi ghtbe som e admi ni s t r at i ve d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e c l a i m i n g th e $ 5 2 m i l l i o n i n P MC fee s t hatw er e al rea d yr efunde d t o the dow ns t r eam opt
- out p lai n ti ff s. I t o o sh are the m ajority ’s fru s tr a ti o n w ith V alori’s fai l ur e t o r eques ta s t ayo f the d is t r i but i on or derhe l at er ch al l enged on a ppeal

. I do not , how ever , cons i ders uch p ro b lem s in so lu b le, s in c e w e d e a l h e re w ith p u re lyf u n g ib le75 a ss e ts— m o n e y . F o r th a t re a so n , I co n sid e r w h ollyin a p p ro p ria te C l as s C ouns el ’ s s ugges t i on— w i s ely s i des t epped bythe m aj or i t y , M aj

. O p. at61 n. 55— t hatw e ext end bey ond t he b a n k ru p tcy co n tex t th e c o n tro v e rsia l d o c trin e o f e q u itab le moo t n e s s , whi c h a p p l i e s o n l yt o a t t e mpt s t o “ u n s c r ambl [e] compl ex ban k rup tcyreo rga n izati o n s, ” a n d ev en then “‘is l i m i t ed i n s cope and s houl d be caut i ous l yappl i ed. ’ ” N or dhof f I nvs . , I nc. v. Zeni th E l ecs . C or

p. , 258 F. 3d 180, 1 8 5 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng I

n r e PW S H oldi ng C or

p. , 2 2 8 F

. 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 )). In sum , I w ou l d v acat e t he o rderrefund i ng the ex cess PM C fee s excl us i vel y t o t he dow ns t r eam opt
- outpl ai nt i ffs and r emand w i t h i ns t ructi ons t hatt he exc es s be r edi s t r i but ed pro ra ta to a ll p lain tiff

s a ss e ss e d su c h f

e e s. B e c a u se th e m a

jo rity w o u ld a f

f irm th e D ist r ic t C o u rt in a ll as p e c ts, I re sp e c tf u lly d i s s e n ta s t o t h i s i s s u e o n l y.