Opinion ID: 2266285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Goodrich Fee Award Distinguishable from Boeing

Text: In Boeing, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's discretionary decision to award attorney's fees based upon a percentage of the common fund created, even when it was known that certain class members would not file claims. The Supreme Court did not adopt or recommend that methodology as a per se rule for federal courts to use in common fund cases. Instead, it was simply applying the appropriate deferential standard of appellate review to a discretionary ruling by the trial court. Moreover, the Court of Chancery recognized that the context of the Boeing fee award was distinguishable from this case in at least two important respects. First, according to the Supreme Court, [t]he judgment on the merits stripped Boeing of any present interest in the fund created by the judgment. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. at 482 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. at 751 n. 7. In Boeing, each holder of convertible debentures was the beneficiary of a judgment against Boeing in a fixed amount. Boeing's right to any unclaimed part of that amount was latent. Id. at 482, 100 S.Ct. at 751. In this case, E.F. Hutton's present interest in any remainder of the common fund was vested. The Settlement provided that to the extent attorney's fees, settlement administration costs, and payments of valid claims by class members did not reach $3.3 million, the balance would be released from escrow and returned to E.F. Hutton. Second, in Boeing, the absent class members were characterized as being at least the equitable owners of their respective shares in the recovery. Id. at 482, 100 S.Ct. at 751. In this case, the amount to be paid to absent class members depended on the extent to which class members submitted claims. The Settlement provided that, if the claims submitted were to exceed $3.3 million, the amount to be paid to claiming class members would be prorated downward. Thus, unlike Boeing, this is not a case in which each member of a certified class has an undisputed and mathematically ascertainable claim to part of a lump-sum judgment recovered on his behalf. Id. at 479, 100 S.Ct. at 749. Cf. id. at 476, 100 S.Ct. at 748.