Case Name: Terry KLEIN, Derivatively on behalf of Sicor, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlo SALVI, Rakepoll Finance, N.V., Karbona Industries, Ltd., Bio-Rakepoll, N.V., Sicor, Inc., and Michael J. Cannon, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 04-1943-CV
Parties: Terry KLEIN, Derivatively on behalf of Sicor, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlo SALVI, Rakepoll Finance, N.V., Karbona Industries, Ltd., Bio-Rakepoll, N.V., Sicor, Inc., and Michael J. Cannon, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 515–516

Head Matter:
Terry KLEIN, Derivatively on behalf of Sicor, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlo SALVI, Rakepoll Finance, N.V., Karbona Industries, Ltd., Bio-Rakepoll, N.V., Sicor, Inc., and Michael J. Cannon, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-1943-CV.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 17, 2004.
Paul D. Wexler, Bragar, Wexler, Eagel & Morgenstern, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Glen F. Ostrager, Ostrager Chong & Flaherty, New York, NY.), for Plaintiff-Appellant, of counsel.
Present: OAKES, KATZMANN, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
. The Court previously granted a motion of the defendants-appellees for relief from their obligations to file an opposition brief and to attend oral argument.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff appeals the district court's award of attorneys' fees in this shareholder derivative action. Because the district court was permitted to use the lodestar method in calculating reasonable attorneys' fees, and because it correctly identified and carefully weighed the relevant factors and made no clearly erroneous factual findings, we see no abuse of discretion in its award of 145 percent of counsel's lodestar figure. See Goldberger v. Integrated Res., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir.2000); Smolowe v. Delendo Corp., 136 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir.1943). The district court was not obligated to use the percentage method, nor are we aware of any authority supporting the application of the business judgment rule in this specific context. Furthermore, the district court's identification of counsel's possible inefficiencies (which may have led to an inflated lodestar) was entirely appropriate.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.