additional reimbursement beyond that previously approved is
proven to be justified.

At the next status hearing, class counsel shall report on
the progress of the distribution of funds.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs' motion [235] is granted in part and
denied in part.

(2) The Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed
forthwith to Authorized Claimants, including Late Claimants,
consistent with the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement
Fund.

(3) Otherwise eligible claims that were submitted after
the October 26, 2005 postmark deadline and received by March 20,
2007, are hereby deemed timely and shall be included in the
Settlement.

(4) Claims Administrator Complete Claims Solution is not
awarded any additional amount of reimbursement above the
$1,368,860.61 approved by the court in the Order dated
January 18, 2006.

(5) Following the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund
to Authorized Claimants (including late claimants and re-
distribution), any residual, unclaimed balance of the Net

Settlement Fund shall be reported to the court by written


charged nor are any subtotals provided for any category of work
or rates. The court has performed the tedious tasks of adding up
the number of hours charged at each rate. The totals are not
commensurate with the expectation that the rates that would be
charged would be primarily for clerical work. The lowest hourly
rate is $45, representing 1124 hours. The court has totaled
different ranges of rates, trying to keep the rates with the
largest number of hours in each group toward the center of each

group. The totals are as follows:

Rate Hours Percentage
$45 1124.00 20.88%
$50-65 249.79 4.64
$70-90 3032.30 56.33
$95-100 773.07 14.36
$105-150 19.90 0.37
$175 124.50 2.31
$210-240 60.00 1.11
Total 5383.56 100.00%

Having $45 as the lowest rate charged, having nearly 75%
of the hours charged at $70 or higher, and having substantial
hours charged at $175 or higher is not consistent with providing
primarily clerical work. In light of the high rates charged for
these latest hours, it is questionable whether the original
amount should have been approved. However, since the prior
amount was already approved and CCS continued to provide services
based on that expectation, the amount previously approved will

not be reduced. In light of the high rates shown, though, no


submission to be filed by September 14, 2007 after which the
disposition of the unclaimed funds will be decided by the court.
(6) A status hearing is set for September 19, 2007 at

11:00 a.m.

ENTER:

Nyon T Lert

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: APRIL 26 , 2007


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,

Vv. 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

Plaintiffs move to authorize distribution of the net
settlement fund and for other relief related to the final
distribution of the settlement fund. The final distribution will
be authorized. As to designation of what to do with any
undistributed funds due to checks not being cashed or an
inability to locate the class members, such funds shall be
subject to further order of the court after a report of the
amount of unclaimed funds.

Plaintiffs also request that the court approve an

additional reimbursement to be paid to Complete Claims Solution


("ees"), the claims administrator in this case. At the time the
class settlement was approved, it was provided that CCS could be
reimbursed up to $1,368,860.61 for its work. That amount was
based on an estimate of work to be performed. The opinion
approving the settlement provided that CCS could request an
additional reimbursement in the event it exceeded this estimate.

See Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc., 2006 WL 163023 *4 (N.D.

Ill. Jan. 18, 2006) ("Abrams Vv"), reconsideration granted on
other grounds, 2006 WL 452419 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2006). on

ccS's behalf, plaintiffs (or more accurately, plaintiffs'
counsel) request an additional reimbursement of $365,105.86. For
the reasons that follow, no reimbursement above the originally
approved amount will be permitted.

At the time CCS was approved as the claims administrator
and its reimbursement estimate was approved, the court relied on
representations made by class counsel. They represented that CCS
was a reputable organization that they had worked with on other
cases and that its participation in a number of class actions had
been approved by other judges. No representation was made
regarding the particular rates that would be charged for work
done by CCS employees. It was expressly or implicitly
represented that CCS's charges would be reasonable.

Documentation of CCS's expenses was to be submitted to class

counsel. ee Abrams V, 2006 WL 163023 at *4. The impression was


that CCS would be providing primarily clerical work and that the
rates charged would be commensurate with such work. The primary
work performed by CCS has been to send notices to actual and
potential class members and to process and calculate the claims
submitted by class members. Even the processing of claims is not
particularly complicated. It involves matching representations
of a particular class member with the records available and then
calculating the class member's potential loss based on particular
days the class member held Van Kampen shares and the amount of
shares held. While an initial evaluation by a person was
required, the work also would have involved much data entry.
Following data entry, a computer program calculated each
claimant's loss and each claimant's percentage share of the
settlement fund based on the claimant's calculated loss. Some
computer programming would have been required to set
specifications for this case. Presumably, though, a general
program is used that does not require substantial modification.
Also, most of any such programming was likely performed prior to
the time period covered by the present submission.

The present submission lists names, hours, and hourly
rates for 60 different employees. No description is provided of
the work performed by any individual nor is the job title of any
employee provided. The lists (two different time periods are

covered) are alphabetical. They are not organized by the rate