for deposition testimony. Michael Barclay, Ph.D., a professor of
finance at the Simon School of Business Administration at the
University of Rochester, charged $450.00 per hour. He was
plaintiffs' damages expert. See Abrams IV, 2005 WL 88973 at *9.
Barclay's bills also include charges for other individuals at his
firm. Their qualifications are not described in any of the
submissions. Those persons charged rates of $75.00 to $350.00
per hour.

Lead Counsel provide no affidavit or other documentation
supporting that these are the customary rates of these experts.
Lead Counsel also provide nothing to show that these rates are
rates ordinarily charged by these type of experts. Lead Counsel
do point to the fact that defendants paid even higher rates to
some of their experts. Defendant liability expert Michael
McAdams of Four Corners Capital Management LLC, see id. at *5-8,
charged $500.00 per hour if working in Los Angeles, $600.00 per
hour to work elsewhere, and $700.00 per hour for deposition
testimony. Defendants' damages experts, Daniel Fischel and David
Ross of Lexecon Inc., see id. at *8-11, charged, respectively,
$1000.00 and $505.00 per hour.

Factors to consider in determining a reasonable rate of
compensation for an expert include: the witness's area of
expertise; the education and training that was required to obtain

the expertise; the prevailing rates of other respected available


copying will be calculated based on 10 cents per page for Miller
Faucher, 12 cents per page for Labaton Sucharow, and 11 cents per
page for Lerach Coughlin.

The total reimbursement for copying will be $119,990.78.
That is based on $86,827.50 for outside copying; $8,657.80
(86,578 x $0.10) for Miller Faucher copying; $18,089.40
(150,745 x $0.12) for Labaton Sucharow copying; and $6,416.08
(58,328 x $0.11) for Lerach Coughlin copying.

Lead Counsel request $102,074.10 for investigators and
trial consultants. They now explain that these costs represent
expenses for the mock jury trial, presentation expenses for the
mediation, and some work by private investigators regarding the
background of witnesses. Although the court has some doubt that
an expenditure of this kind and amount should be charged, the
requested amount will be allowed.

As to travel, transportation, and meal expenses, Lead
Counsel have provided a listing of all trips, who traveled, and
the work performed. This documentation is satisfactory. The
$130,106.86 that is requested will be reimbursed.

As to expenses identified as legal and factual research,
it was previously held that no separate reimbursement would be
permitted for computer-assisted legal research. Abrams V,

2006 WL 163023 at *5. Lead Counsel identify $540.14 of this

expense that does not represent research on Westlaw or Lexis.

- 10 -


experts that they had paid $400.00 and $475.00 per hour. The
court indicated that those charges were likely excessive, but
allowed reimbursement because lead counsel had actually incurred
the expense and had been awarded only 20% of the class recovery
as a fee.

Lead Counsel have not established that the requested
reimbursements are based on customary and reasonable hourly
rates. The reimbursements will be based on $350.00 per hour for
all work of Allen and Barclay, including deposition testimony.
The hourly rates for the associates that worked with Barclay will
be reduced as well in a generally proportional manner as set
forth below.

Lead Counsel will be reimbursed $159,228.55 based on the
billings of Allen. This represents 322.5 hours of Allen at
$350.00 per hour ($112,875.00), 67 assistant hours at $25.00 per
hour ($1,675.00), and $45,710.13 in expenses for a total of
$160,260.13. The total has been reduced by $1,031.58 that Lead
Counsel inadvertently mislabeled and has already been included in
another category of expense for which reimbursement was
previously allowed. See Supp. Memo. at 7 n.2.

Lead Counsel will be reimbursed $101,666.84 based on the
billings of Barclay's firm, Forensic Economics, Inc. That amount
is calculated as follows (based on the hours and hourly rates

shown in parentheses):


experts; the nature, quality and complexity of the work
performed; the fee actually charged by the expert on related
matters; the cost of living in the pertinent geographic area; and
any other factor likely to assist the court. Fait v. Hummel,
2002 WL 31433424 *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2002); Profile Products,
LLC v. Soil Management Technologies, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 880,
886 (N.D. Tll. 2001); Royal Maccabees, 2001 WL 290308 at “16.

It is difficult to find directly comparable fees allowed
in other cases. While no recent cases have been found involving
fees for these same experts or for others with precisely the same
speciality, it appears unusual to allow expert fees greater than
$350.00 per hour. See, e.g., Fait, 2002 WL 31433424 ($425.00 per
hour for deposition testimony of financial valuation expert);
Profile Products, 155 F. Supp. 2d at 886-87 (forensic accountant
requested $475.00 per hour and was allowed $250.00 per hour);
Royal Maccabees, 2001 WL 290308 at *17 ($600.00 per hour
requested for deposition testimony of psychiatrist and $250.00

per hour allowed); Frederick v. Columbia University, 212 F.R.D.

176, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (leading toxicologist sought $975.00 per
hour for deposition testimony and $300.00 per hour for travel
time; court allowed $375.00 per hour for deposition testimony and
$200.00 per hour for travel time). In KeySpan, 2005 WL 3093399
at *19, a settled class action securities fraud case brought in

New York, lead counsel sought reimbursement for accountant


will be allowed. As to in-house copying, Lead Counsel concede
that they should be limited to the rates an outside copying
service would charge. Abrams V, 2006 WL 163023 at *5. Lead
Counsel contend in-house copying should be reimbursed at 13.92
cents per page, which is based on dividing the $86,827.50 by the
623,712 copies that amount includes. However, the $86,827.50
includes additional items besides the copying itself such as
diskette reproduction, tabbing, binding, delivery charges, and
sales tax. It also includes some color copying. There is no
indication that the in-house copying is anything other than
simple, black and white copying. A recent Seventh Circuit case
affirms limiting a Philadelphia law firm to 6 or 7 cents per page

for in-house copying. United States v. Emergency Medical

Associates of Illinois, Inc., F.3d , 2006 WL 229999 *4

(7th Cir. Feb. 1, 2006). Miller Faucher in Chicago paid 10 cents
per page for outside copying. Labaton Sucharow in New York paid
12 cents per page for such copying. There are no outside copying
bills from Lerach Coughlin (formerly Cauley Geller) in Boca
Raton, Florida.? There are bills from its San Diego and Little

Rock offices that vary from 10.5 to 16 cents per page.‘ In-house

3There are some bills from a Chicago copying service that
sent the copies to Boca Raton, but the copying service apparentiy
charged extra per page in lieu of any delivery charge.

‘The 16 cents per page was for "heavy litigation”
copying.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

IRENE ABRAMS, on behalf of
herself and all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 01 C 7538
VAN KAMPEN FUNDS, INC.,

VAN KAMPEN INVESTMENT ADVISORY
CORPORATION, VAN KAMPEN PRIME
RATE INCOME TRUST, RICHARD F.
POWERS, III, STEPHEN L. BOYD, and
DENNIS J. McDONNELL,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a class action subject to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1.
Recently, a class settlement was approved as fair, Lead Counsel
were awarded fees representing 25% of the net settlement fund,
and Lead Counsel were awarded reimbursement of certain expenses.

See Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc., 2006 WL 163023 (N.D. Ill.

Jan. 18, 2006) (“Abrams Vv"). On January 20, 2006, a judgment was
entered dismissing plaintiffs' cause of action with prejudice.

This court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the


Uno-Ven Co., 1998 WL 895557 *4 (N.D. Tll. Dec. 14, 1998). But
see Emergency Medical Associates, _ F.3d at ___, 2006 WL 229999
at *4 (affirming, without discussion, the awarding of pro hac
vice fees as a cost). $4,906.10 will be reimbursed for expenses
labeled as court costs and service fees.

The additional reimbursements total $646,422.87. Added
to the $1,459,619.30 previously awarded, the new total is
$2,106,042.17. The Claims Administrator will be permitted to
distribute up to this much in reimbursement, plus proportionate
interest. This disbursement will reduce the net recovery on
which the 25% fee award will be calculated.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lead Counsel's Supplemental
Memorandum in Support of Reimbursement [219] is construed as a
motion for reconsideration. Lead Counsel's motion for
reconsideration [219] is granted in part and denied in part. The
Claims Administrator shall distribute from the Settlement Fund
reimbursement of expenses totaling up to $2,106,042.17 plus

proportionate interest.

ENTER:

WeltiemT Lae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

DATED: FEBRUARY 7 , 2006

- 12 -


Most of this cost represents financial research conducted through
other electronic services. The $540.14 that is requested wiil be
allowed. It is noted, though, that charges for accessing this
court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF) might properly be
categorized as unreimbursable firm overhead. However, the charge
will be allowed because it is only $16.29.

Last to consider is the expense that had been labeled as
court costs and service fees. See Abrams V, 2006 WL 163023
at *6. Lead Counsel now informs the court that a majority of the
amount originally requested represented the costs of publishing
notice of the suit as required by the PSLRA. Lead Counsel has
withdrawn much of this requested amount because the notices
published exceeded the requirements of the PSLRA. The portion
that is requested for such notices will be allowed as will most
of the other expenses. Most of the expenses are for serving the
lawsuit on defendants and for service and other fees related to
third-party depositions. $350.00 for pro hac vice fees will not
be reimbursed. It is the attorney's choice as to where to seek
admission and where to practice. For $100.00, the attorney could
be permanently admitted to this court instead of paying $50.00
per case. A client should not be charged for the cost of the

attorney being admitted to practice. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v.

Vaughan Co., 2002 WL 31207212 *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2002);

International Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, Local 7-517 v.

-1l1l-


Barclay (143.75 x $350) $ 50,312.50
Mulcahey (446.50 x $100) 44,650.00
Torchino ( 48.75 x $250) 12,187.50
Laffey* (301.50 x $ 40) 12,060.00
Krenzer ( 75.50 x $100) 7,550.00
Bedworth ( 23.75 x $ 65) 1,543.75
Pansori ( 2.00 x $125) 250.00
Kotz ( 1.75 x $125) 218.75
Staff ( 4,00 x $ 25) 100.00
Expenses 244.34

Subtotal $129,116.84

Prior Reimbursement? -27, 450.00
Total $101,666.84

Ronald Picur, Ph.D., was an accounting expert. He billed
his time at $250.00 per hour and apparently also used assistants
that he billed at lower rates. The $26,909.50 that is requested
will be allowed.

Thomas Herzfeld, a specialist in closed-ended mutual
funds, provided two hours of consulting work at $500.00 per hour.
Since it is only two hours, the full amount of $1,000.00 will be
allowed.

The total for experts is $288,804.89.

As to photocopying expenses, Lead Counsel submit bills

from outside copying services that total $86,827.50. That amount

tLaffey's hours include amounts billed as Artisan
Solutions.

?Lead Counsel represent that, pursuant to the court order
dated September 27, 2004, they received a reimbursement from
defendants. Although that order pertained to a reimbursement for
sending revised notices necessitated by a prior error of
defendants, Lead Counsel has made the adjustment to the costs
associated with Barclay. See Supp. Memo. at 4-5.


Linda Allen, Ph.D., a professor of finance at Baruch
College of the City University of New York, was plaintiffs'
valuation expert regarding the NAV of the Van Kampen Prime Rate

Income Trust. See Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc., 2005 WL

88973 *13-14 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2005) ("Abrams IV"). Certainly,
most of Allen's work was as an expert and Lead Counsel is
entitled to be reimbursed for fees paid for that work. However,

Allen also devoted substantial hours to work she described in her

bills as: “assist in the evaluation of compliance with discovery
requests," "assist in preparation of supplemental discovery
requests," "document search," "consultation and assistance during
depositions," and "comply with document request." While some

general consultation with an expert may be appropriate in order
to know what documents to ask for and some questions to ask at
depositions, Allen's bills indicate actual involvement in the
discovery process itself. That is legal work. This type of work
will not be separately reimbursed as an expert fee. Also, Allen
used graduate assistants to perform clerical data entry work that
apparently could have just as easily been performed by the
paralegal or clerical staff of one of the law firms involved in
this case. That type of work will not be separately reimbursed
as an expert fee.

A second issue is the rates charged by the experts.

Allen charged $375.00 per hour for most work and $625.00 per hour


290308 *17 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2001); New York v. Solvent
Chemical Co., 210 F.R.D. 462, 468 (W.D.N.Y. 2002).

There are two problems with the reimbursement request for
expert fees. The first is that some of the fees that Lead
Counsel has labeled as expert fees are actually payments for work
more properly characterized as work that should be charged as
attorney fees. That is an important distinction because the
entire attorney fee award is being awarded as a percentage of the
class recovery. Thus, no additional expense reimbursement is
permitted for items properly characterized as an aspect of
attorney fees. See Abrams V, 2006 WL 163023 at *6 (expenses for
computer-assisted legal research are part of attorney fees that
is not separately awarded as an expense). Lead Counsel seek
reimbursement for fees paid to Joel Seligman, the then-dean of
the Washington University School of Law whom Lead Counsel
describe as "among the nation's foremost experts on securities
law." An expert on the law is an attorney. Had this case gone
to trial, the court would have instructed the jury as to
securities law and no witness, expert or otherwise, would have
been permitted to testify as to the state of applicable
securities law. The advice received from Seligman, as helpful as
it may have been to counsel, is properly characterized as legal
fee work. Lead Counsel will not be separately reimbursed for

fees charged by Seligman.


settlement, to resolve any disputes regarding distribution of the
settlement proceeds, and to determine the distribution of any
unclaimed settlement proceeds. In Abrams V, the court denied
certain aspects of Lead Counsel's reimbursement request based on
inadequate documentation. It was expressly stated that the court
would reconsider that ruling if Lead Counsel submitted additional
documentation within ten days of the entry of the order. See id.
at *5-6. Ten days thereafter, Lead Counsel filed a supplemental
memorandum in support of reimbursement of certain categories of
expenses. That pleading is construed as a motion for
reconsideration. For the following reasons, the motion is
granted in part and denied in part.

Lead Counsel presently seek reimbursement for $427,741.44
in expert fees. Ordinarily, when the fees awarded to counsel in
a common fund case are based on the percentage-of-recovery method
as in this case, counsel are separately entitled to reimbursement
for expert fees incurred on behalf of the class. In re KeySpan

Corp. Securities Litigation, 2005 WL 3093399 *18-19 (E.D.N.Y.

Sept. 30, 2005). As with any expense, however, counsel are only
entitled to be reimbursed for expert fees to the extent the fees
were reasonable, Id. The burden is on Lead Counsel to show that
the fees charged and paid were reasonable and not duplicative.

See Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Co. v. Malachinski, 2001 WL