practices which the complaint attacked would have remained
II. The Quality of Services Provided
This Court is hard pressed to find another case in its history
which had such a glittering array of legal talent on the sides of
both the plaintiffs and defendants. Certainly the attorneys for
the plaintiffs as well as the attorneys for the defendants
represent the cream of the Anti-trust bar in the United States.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are well-known in the anti-trust and
securities fields, and have litigated some of the most
significant cases to come before the bench in the past decade.
Plaintiffs' attorneys include counsel who tried the first of the
electrical equipment anti-trust cases resulting in an award after
a jury verdict of $29,000,000, Philadelphia Electric Co. v.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. 1964 Trade Case, Para. 11, 123
(E.D.Pa. 1964); counsel who accomplished the $29,000,000
settlement in City of Philadelphia v. American Oil Co., Civ. No.
647-68 (D.N.J. 1973); Philadelphia Electric Company v. Anaconda
American Brass Co., 47 F.R.D. 557 (E.D.Pa. 1969), and the
$26,000,000 settlement in Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of
Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.,
341 F. Supp. 1077 (E.D.Pa. 1972).
Full credit must be given to plaintiffs' counsel for the
significant result achieved in this litigation. Their standing
and prior record of success in major antitrust and class action
litigation must have been one of the major factors in the
defendants' decision to settle on an industry-wide basis.
Plaintiffs' attorneys, in their presentation of pleadings,
memoranda, and the Master Settlement Agreement and in their
performance in the courtroom during hearings and settlement
negotiations have sincerely impressed this Court with their
skill, expertise and dedication to service. The instant Master
Settlement Agreement is not only documented testimony of the
outstanding performance of plaintiffs' attorneys, but also a well
deserved addition to their illustrious careers and their service
to the anti-trust bar.
III. Time and Labor Spent
In this litigation plaintiffs were faced with the problem of
putting together a case without benefit of prior successful
action by the government and in direct contravention of
decisional law and business custom and practice of many years
duration. After carefully examining the affidavits of the
plaintiffs' attorneys in regard to time expended it is clear to
this Court that the instant action necessitated many difficult
hours of study and preparation before and after the filing of
After these suits were filed the question of primary
jurisdiction was raised by the defendants; briefed and argued by
both sides. Depositions were taken, experts consulted and studies
made. Since under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
it is necessary to have a class determination early in the case
plaintiffs apparently proceeded to prepare for that issue by
submitting interrogatories and researching and briefing the
When finally there were indications that the case might be
settled, lengthy, and complicated negotiations were entered into.
These negotiations involved innumerable meetings both with
representatives of the defense counsel and among the various
plaintiffs' attorneys. Whatever differences between attorneys
existed from time to time were always harmonized and at no time
did plaintiffs' attorneys present anything but a united front.
The settlement documents as finally approved went through a
multitude of changes as the necessities of the plaintiffs'
position and the negotiations required. The Master Settlement
Agreement as finally approved by this Court represents the
fruition of the labor of both plaintiffs' and defendants'
This Court has considered the number of hours spent in this
litigation by the plaintiffs' attorneys as well as the manner
in which they were spent. See Lindy Bros. Builders v. American
Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir.
1973). It is the opinion of this Court that the vast majority of
the time spent by the plaintiffs' attorneys in this litigation
was fairly allocated to discovery, legal research, preparation of
pleadings, settlement negotiations and general case preparation.
Since the benefit of these actions accrued to all class
members, there is no need or basis in the instant litigation to
segregate the attorneys' time spent between that spent on behalf
of the class members and that spent solely on behalf of the named
plaintiffs. All members of the class have benefited as a whole by
the services of their attorneys.
A small amount of time which is recorded in the affidavits of
plaintiffs' attorneys cannot be allowed as reasonable time spent
on this litigation. Thus it is the opinion of this Court after
carefully examining the affidavits and supplemental affidavits of
the plaintiffs' attorneys that 3,734.50 hours, were properly
expended by the plaintiffs' attorneys in this litigation. The
following is a breakdown of that total time by attorneys:
1. Aram A. Hartunian and Charles Pressman 1542.25 hours*fn6
2. William C. Engelke 20.00 hours
3. Steven Goldman 255.00 hours
4. Paul Lurie 35.50 hours
5. Jack Joseph 37.75 hours
6. Edward A. Berman and Lawrence Walner 295.00 hours*fn7
7. Jerome S. Wald 126.75 hours
8. Perry Goldberg 694.50 hours
9. Josef D. Cooper 17.25 hours
10. Granvil I. Specks 14.75 hours
11. Aaron M. Fine 152.50 hours
12. Stuart H. Savett 238.00 hours
13. Donald L. Weinberg 93.75 hours
14. Arthur M. Kaplan 50.50 hours
15. Herbert E. Milstein 14.00 hours
16. Michael D. Hausfeld 3.50 hours
17. Harold E. Kohn 3.50 hours
18. Abraham L. Pomerantz 60.00 hours
19. Richard M. Meyer 35.00 hours
20. Donald J. Miller 45.00 hours
Total = 3734.50 hours
IV. The Beneficial Result Achieved