IBJNews

Lawyers in concrete price-fixing case awarded $18M in fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Despite objections from Duke Realty Corp., a federal judge has approved additional attorney fees relating to the ready-mix price-fixing settlement that drives the total take for lawyers up to nearly $18 million.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker signed off on the new fees earlier this week after Indianapolis-based Duke opposed a request to award an additional $9.7 million in attorney fees, calling the amount excessive.

Duke, one of the plaintiffs in the antitrust class-action lawsuit, had complained that the lawyers who had waged the five-year fight on its behalf would walk away with too large a windfall.

Indianapolis attorney Irwin Levin and his legal team negotiated almost $60 million in settlements with providers of ready-mix concrete in the Indianapolis area.

The $18 million in fees is based on a common formula in class-action cases that awards attorneys one-third of the recovery amount. The fees are among the highest ever for an Indianapolis class-action case.

Attorneys for Duke, however, argued a more appropriate award should fall between 5 percent and 22.5 percent of the settlement amount. They said in court documents that plaintiff lawyers “offer little substantive support that [one-third] reflects a true market rate, in this instance.”

Duke further said that by the time Levin and his team struck their largest settlement—a $29 million deal with Greenfield-based Irving Materials Inc.—the danger of not getting paid was “virtually nonexistent.”

But Barker pointed out that Levin and his team took the case knowing they wouldn’t get paid if they lost. Because of the uncertainties, class-action attorneys are accustomed to collecting larger checks than colleagues paid by the hour.

“From the time Class Counsel agreed to provide services,” she wrote, “this risk of the litigation has been substantial.”

Levin, managing partner of Cohen & Malad LLP, told IBJ in late March that other plaintiffs are “absolutely thrilled” about the settlement, and that they are recovering nearly the entire amounts they were overcharged as a result of the price-fixing scheme.

Barker rendered her final judgment on Tuesday.

Levin was co-lead counsel in the case with Stephen Susman of Susman Godfrey in Houston. Both are heavy hitters nationally who’ve won some big class-action settlements over the years.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT