In re Activision Securities Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
723 F. Supp. 1373 (1989)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
A group of plaintiffs (the class) (plaintiffs) brought a class-action lawsuit against Activision, Inc. (defendant), alleging that Activision’s officers, directors, underwriters, accountants, and others had committed securities fraud. After three years of pretrial proceedings and discovery, just as trial was set to begin, the parties negotiated a settlement. The settlement agreement provided for a common-fund arrangement, meaning that Activision was to establish a settlement fund from which payments to class members, attorney’s fees, and expenses would be deducted. Class counsel submitted an application to the trial court for attorney’s fees and expenses, supported by billing records, affidavits, and other documentation. A special master analyzed the application and recommended awarding the attorneys roughly $1,161,000 in attorney’s fees and nearly $400,000 in expenses. The recommended attorney’s fees represented 22 percent of the settlement fund, and the total recommended award of fees and expenses represented 32.8 percent of the settlement fund. The trial court considered the special master’s recommendation and determined whether to award the fees and expenses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Patel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.