Search for: "In Re Synthroid Marketing Litigation"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2007, 9:32 am
Oct. 12, 2007) (quoting In re Synthroid Mktg. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 10:03 pm
The court said: The 12 percent figure was plucked out of a hat, and a hat with three holes in it: the unresolved comparison with securities class actions, the arbitrary reduction in attorneys' fees for the [$35 million in] nonpecuniary relief, and the perfunctory (less than a page) consideration, also left unresolved, of the relative risk of loss in the present case and in [In re] Synthroid [Marketing Litig., 324 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2003)]. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 8:00 am
The appellate court began by citing In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, noting that establishing a fee structure at the outset of litigation is the preferred method, but not the only lawful method, for setting the compensation for counsel in a common-fund case. [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 2:40 pm
In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, 264 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir.2001); In re Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 962 F.2d 566, 571–72 (7th Cir.1992); In re United States Bancorp Litigation, 291 F.3d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir.2002); 2 Joseph M. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm
The main question addressed by the Court was whether the fee request should be granted based on Plaintiffs counsel’s proposed “flat-percentage” approach or the “sliding scale” model that district courts in the Seventh Circuit often use to award attorneys’ fees for class action settlements as outlined in In Re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, 264 F.3d 712, 721 (7th Cir. 2001). [read post]
