Judge Nagala utilized a methodical three-step approach, initially setting a reasonable fee baseline by comparing similar settlements in scope and complexity. Subsequent consideration of the Goldberger factors—evaluating the litigation’s risks, representation quality, and potential for undue reward—further shaped the final fee determination.
Moreover, a lodestar cross-check, which takes into account the actual hours worked by the attorneys, was applied, anchoring the fees firmly at 25%. This decision reflects findings from multiple studies, which suggest that the median attorney fees for comparable ERISA cases hovered around 24.6% to 28%.
Xerox $4.1M ERISA Deal Trimming : Reaction to the Ruling
The ruling has sparked significant discourse on attorney compensation in class action settlements, especially in high-stakes ERISA litigation. While an attorney for the plaintiffs opted not to comment on the judgment, responses from Xerox’s legal representatives are still pending.
As this legal chapter closes, the focus shifts to the broader implications for corporate accountability and the protective mechanisms for employee rights under ERISA statutes. This case not only underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing interests but also sets a precedent for future ERISA disputes.
