1

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE YAHOO! INC. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK,

17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, 

AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Re: Dkt. No. 107

This matter came on for hearing on September 6, 2018 (the “Settlement Hearing”) on 

Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and 

awards for named Plaintiffs. The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the 

Settlement Hearing and otherwise; and it appearing that notice of the Settlement Hearing 

substantially in the form approved by the Court was mailed to all Settlement Class Members who 

or which could be identified with reasonable effort, and that a summary notice of the hearing 

substantially in the form approved by the Court was transmitted over the PR Newswire pursuant to 

the specifications of the Court; and the Court having considered and determined the fairness and 
2

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reasonableness of the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses requested, 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and 

Agreement of Settlement dated March 2, 2018 (the “Stipulation”) (ECF No. 74) and all capitalized 

terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. 

2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order and over the subject matter of the 

Action and all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members.

3. Notice of Co-Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

reimbursement of litigation expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be 

identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the 

motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

(“PSLRA”) (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)), due process, and all other applicable law and rules, 

constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient 

notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto. 

4. The Court GRANTS the request for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. CoLead Counsel are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,400,000—namely, 18% of 

the $80,000,000 Settlement Fund—and $353,282.72 in reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s 

litigation expenses (which fees and expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Fund), which sums 

the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Co-Lead Counsel shall allocate the attorneys’ fees 

awarded in a manner which they, in good faith, believe reflects the contributions of such counsel 

to the institution, prosecution, and settlement of the Action. 
3

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to be paid 

from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that: 

a. The Settlement has created a fund of $80,000,000 in cash that has been 

funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and that numerous Settlement Class 

Members who submit valid Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of 

the efforts of Co-Lead Counsel;

b. The fee has been reviewed and approved as reasonable by Plaintiffs, 

sophisticated investors who actively supervised the Action;

c. Copies of the Notice were mailed to over 802,987 potential Settlement 

Class Members and nominees stating that Co-Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys’ fees of up 

to $20,000,000 (or 25% of the Settlement Fund), reimbursement of Co-Lead Counsel’s litigation 

expenses in an amount not to exceed $750,000, and awards for Plaintiffs for their reasonable time 

in representing the Settlement Class in an amount not to exceed $275,000 in the aggregate; and no 

objections to the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses or requested awards to Plaintiffs were 

received;

d. Co-Lead Counsel conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement with 

skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy;

e. The Action raised a number of complex issues;

f. Had Co-Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement there would remain a 

significant risk that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Settlement Class may have recovered 

less or nothing from Defendants;

g. Co-Lead Counsel’s claimed lodestar of approximately $7.2 million (based 

on a total of 16,837 hours) appears high. However, even with this high lodestar, Plaintiffs’
4

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

requested attorneys’ fee award of $14.4 million results in a multiplier of 2, which falls within the 

range of multipliers approved in previous cases, see, e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 

1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (approving multiplier of 3.65); and

h. The amount of attorneys’ fees awarded and expenses to be reimbursed from 

the Settlement Fund are fair and reasonable and consistent with awards in similar cases.

6. The Court DENIES the request for awards of $235,200 to named Plaintiff Ben 

Maher; $7,500 to named Plaintiff Sutton View Partners LP; and $7,500 to named Plaintiff Nafiz 

Talukder. Under the PSLRA, “[t]he share of any final judgment or of any settlement that is 

awarded to a representative party serving on behalf of a class shall be equal, on a per share basis, 

to the portion of the final judgment or settlement awarded to all other members of the class.” 15 

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4). Nevertheless, courts may award any “reasonable costs and expenses 

(including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the class to any representative party 

serving on behalf of a class.” Id. In order to receive an award beyond their class compensation, the 

named plaintiffs must “demonstrat[e] that the requested [award] amounts represent actual costs 

and expenses incurred directly as a result of the litigation.” In re TVIA Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV06304-RMW, 2008 WL 2693811, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2008).

Although the PSLRA specifically states that lost wages constitute “reasonable costs and 

expenses,” courts have held that lost sales commissions, lost earning opportunities, out-of-pocket 

expenses, and foregoing employer-granted vacation time also constitute “reasonable costs and 

expenses.” For example, in Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc., the court held that “[named] 

plaintiffs do not contend that any portion of the requested amount represents any actual expenses 

that either has incurred. They do not claim that they missed any work or other earning opportunity 
5

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in order to participate in the litigation.” No. 01-CV-07538-WTH, 2006 WL 163023, at *4 (N.D. 

Ill. Jan. 18, 2006).

Similarly, in In re AMF Bowling, the court held that “[n]othing presented . . . places the 

time devoted to this case by the two [named plaintiffs] into the category of a recoverable expense. 

Neither claims any out-of-pocket expense. There is no assertion that either lost time at work or 

gave up employer-granted vacation time. Neither cites to lost sales commissions nor missed 

business opportunities.” 334 F. Supp. 2d 462, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

In the instant case, the three named Plaintiffs do not claim that they lost wages, missed any

work or other earning opportunities, or incurred any out-of-pocket expenses to participate in this 

litigation. They do not cite to lost sales commissions or any foregoing of employer-granted 

vacation time. In fact, each of the three named Plaintiffs requests a “compensatory award . . . in 

light of my time and effort expended in pursuing this action.” ECF Nos. 108-4 ¶ 21, 108-5 ¶ 12, 

108-6 ¶ 15. “Under the PSLRA, [named] plaintiffs cannot be awarded additional compensation.” 

Abrams, 2006 WL 163023, at *4. Such compensatory awards do not constitute “reasonable costs 

and expenses” that may be reimbursed under the PSLRA.

Moreover, the three named Plaintiffs provide conclusory estimates of the hours spent on

this case and their billing rates. ECF Nos. 108-4, 108-5, 108-6. The three named Plaintiffs have 

not substantiated their requested hours or billing rates with adequate documentation or evidence.

Accordingly, the request for awards to named Plaintiff Ben Maher, named Plaintiff Sutton 

View Partners LP, and named Plaintiff Nafiz Talukder is DENIED.

7. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court’s approval regarding any 

attorneys’ fees and expense application or denial regarding awards to any of the named Plaintiffs 

shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.
6

Case Nos. 17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

8. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained over the parties and the Settlement Class 

Members for all matters relating to this Action, including the administration, interpretation, 

effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation and this Order. 

9. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the Settlement 

otherwise fails to occur, this Order shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the 

Stipulation.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 

Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and 

awards for named Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge