Case 2:04-cv ROS Document 750 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 14

Transcription

1 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of SUSAN MARTIN (AZ#0) SHAUN P. MARTIN, Pro Hac Vice DANIEL L. BONNETT (AZ#0) UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO JENNIFER KROLL (AZ#0) SCHOOL OF LAW MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. Alcala Park, Warren Hall 0 N. Central Ave. Suite 0 San Diego, CA Phoenix, Arizona 00 Telephone: () 0- Telephone: (0) 0-00 smartin@sandiego.edu smartin@martinbonnett.com dbonnett@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com PETER K. STRIS, Pro Hac Vice STRIS & MAHER, LLP S. Vermont Ave., Bldg. E Gardena, CA 0 Telephone: () -00 Peter.stris@strismaher.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 0 Barbara Allen, Richard Dippold, Melvin Jones, Donald McCarty, Richard Scates and Walter G. West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, and Plan Administrator of Honeywell Secured Benefit Plan, Defendants. No. CV0-0 PHX ROS PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS (Fairness Hearing to be held April, 0 at :00 p.m.)

2 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule. of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and the Order of this Court preliminarily approving the Class Action Final Settlement Agreement ( Settlement or Agreement ), (Doc. ), and in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, Class Counsel respectfully requests that the Court award attorneys fees in the amount of $,0,000, which is % of the common benefit fund created under the Settlement Agreement plus $00,000 in costs of the litigation to be paid directly by Defendants in addition to the settlement fund of $ million ($,000,000). This motion is supported Declaration of Susan Martin in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs dated March 0, 0 and the exhibits thereto ( Martin Decl. ), the Declaration of Shaun Martin in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs and exhibit thereto, the Declaration of Peter Stris in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs and exhibit thereto, and the record before this Court. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The Final Settlement is an excellent result for the class members. If the Court awards the requested fees and costs, Group A members, who were damaged under a net effect test will receive % of the value of their damages and all Group B members will receive $00 each. This Final Settlement amount of $,000,000 plus $00,000 in costs that will be utilized to pay the expenses of the lawsuit (including reimbursement to individuals who helped fund this lawsuit through contributions to the Garrett Retirees Action Committee) is a significant achievement. BACKGROUND Plaintiff respectfully refers the Court to the parties joint motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Final Settlement, (Doc., at pp. -) for a detailed description of the claims and litigation preceding the Final Settlement. By way of summary, after filing administrative claims and appeals in 00 and 00, Plaintiffs commenced the litigation on March, 00, claiming Defendants had violated ERISA, and the terms of the Garrett Retirement Plan, the Garrett Severance Plan, and the

3 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 applicable successor plans. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment. On July, 00, the Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on some of their claims, and dismissed with prejudice many others. After limited discovery and extensive negotiations, the parties entered into a Partial Settlement Agreement in October 00, which was approved by the Court on February, 00. Pursuant to the Partial Settlement Agreement, Defendants paid Plaintiffs over $ million, and agreed to stop charging administrative fees to the Secured Benefit Accounts. In exchange, Plaintiffs released all claims except the Three Remaining Claims, defined as the SBA Offset Claim, the Social Security Offset Claim and the Minimum Benefits Claim. The briefing in this case on the Three Remaining Claims has been extensive. There were docket entries prior to the filing of this motion for fees and costs. This Court has rendered numerous decisions, including two published opinions. Since the Partial Settlement, there have been numerous substantive motions including Defendants Motion for Reconsideration based on a Treasury letter, (Doc. ), Defendants motion for summary judgment on the Minimum Benefits Claim, (Doc. ), cross-motions for summary judgment on the statute of limitations, (Docs. 0, ), and cross-motions for summary judgment on all remaining claims and defenses, (Docs., ), which were sub judice at the time the Agreement was reached. Class Counsel vigorously litigated this case both before and after the Partial Settlement. Following approval of the Partial Settlement agreement, Class Counsel undertook or defended thirty-six depositions at numerous locations around the country. (Martin Decl..) With regard to the Three Remaining Claims, Class Counsel reviewed and analyzed tens of thousands of documents that were produced by Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiffs successfully made a motion to compel documents that Defendants claimed were privileged, (Doc. ), including a follow-up motion to compel fiduciary documents that resulted in the production of many more documents by Defendants. (Doc. p..)

4 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Plaintiffs also successfully moved to compel testimony on a Retirement Plan amendment that was adopted in the year 000. (Doc..) Class Counsel has spent hundreds of hours working with its actuarial experts. This case involved complex benefits and damages analysis covering a period of more than years. Defendants retained two nationally recognized actuarial firms to serve as experts. Plaintiffs engaged three highly experienced ERISA actuarial firms, all of whom rendered reports in this case and for whom depositions were extremely complex and lengthy, in certain instances spanning multiple days. (Martin Decl..) In May 0, the parties engaged in a two day arms-length mediation with Eric Green, a mediator with expertise in large class action mediation who had assisted with the mediation that resulted in the Partial Settlement. The Final Settlement process has also involved substantial effort. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and the Plan of Allocation, Martin & Bonnett was required to undertake responsibility for a Plan of Allocation, creating a final settlement payment list and for administering the claims process. Class Counsel has spent enormous amounts of time instructing and overseeing the actuaries and the claims administrator, evaluating information submitted by surviving spouses and estate representative of deceased Participants and Beneficiaries and responding to inquiries from class members. (Martin Decl. -.) I. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT Class Counsel s actuary estimated that the value of the losses to the Settlement Class under a net effect analysis was approximately $. million. The Final Settlement provides for benefits of $,000,000, minus any amounts awarded for attorneys fees plus an additional amount of $00,000 towards the reimbursement of the costs and expenses of the litigation which total well in excess of one million dollars. Class Counsel worked extensively with Class Counsel s actuaries to create an equitable plan of allocation that divides the Participants into two groups Group A and Group B. Group A includes all Settlement Class members who are Participants listed in

5 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 the Database for whom Class Counsel s actuary has determined that they in fact received or were scheduled to receive lesser benefits under the Signal Retirement Plan, Allied Signal Retirement Program or the Retirement Plan compared to the value of the retirement benefits that would have been paid under the Garrett Retirement Plan if the Garrett Retirement Plan had not been amended effective December,. If the motion for attorneys fees and costs is approved and if the Settlement achieves Final Approval, the Settlement will provide to all Group A Participants % of their individual proportionate percentage share of the present value of the difference between the value of benefits paid or to be paid to them under the Signal Retirement Plan, Allied Signal Retirement Program or the Retirement Plan and the value of the retirement benefits that would have been paid to them under the Garrett Retirement Plan if the Garrett Retirement Plan had not been amended effective December,. Group B includes all Settlement Class members who are Participants listed in the Database will each receive a Final Settlement Benefit of $00 if the Court grants Class Counsel s motion for attorneys fees. If the motion for attorneys fees and costs is approved and if the Settlement achieves Final Approval, all Group B Participants will receive an equal per capita share of Final Settlement benefits of $00. II. CLASS COUNSEL S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS IS FAIR AND REASONABLE A. An Award of Attorneys Fees from the Common Fund is Appropriate Class Counsel respectfully requests the Court to exercise its discretion to award the attorneys fees requested here in the amount of % of the common fund. In Paul, There is a third Settlement Group, Group C. Group C Members include, inter alia, all Settlement Class members whom Class Counsel has determined are not entitled to any recovery under the Final Settlement Agreement because they could not or would not have recovered under any of the Three Remaining Claims. Group C Members either (A) suffered no losses under any of Plaintiffs theories of recovery or (B) are not Participants as defined in the Agreement because they did not have a vested benefit under the Signal Retirement Plan, or because their benefit was transferred to another pension plan, or because they died without a beneficiary before July, 00, or whose surviving beneficiary died before July, 00.

6 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, F.d, (th Cir. ), the Ninth Circuit stated: Since the Supreme Court's decision in Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, U.S., L. Ed., S. Ct. (), it is well settled that the lawyer who creates a common fund is allowed an extra reward, beyond that which he has arranged with his client, so that he might share the wealth of those upon whom he has conferred a benefit. See also In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., F.d, 00 (th Cir. ) ( those who benefit from the creation of the fund should share the wealth with the lawyers whose skill and effort helped create it. ). Common fund attorneys fees awards under ERISA and other similar statutes are well established in this Circuit and elsewhere. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d, (th Cir. 00) (ERISA case); Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d, (th Cir. 00); In re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp., -(N.D. Cal. ) (collecting cases and describing benefits of the percentage of the common fund method over the lodestar method); In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc., Nos. 0-, 00 WL, * (N.D. Cal. Dec., 00); Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guar. Plan, No. 00-, 00 WL 0 (S.D. Ill. Jan., 00); Local, United Food & Commer. Workers Union v. Campbell Soup Co., F. Supp. 00, 0 (D. N.J. ). See also Mark Berlind, Attorney s Fees under ERISA: When is an Award Appropriate? Cornell L. Rev., 0- () ( Applying the common benefit doctrine reflects the statute's purpose and enables qualifying potential plaintiffs, regardless of their financial status, to bring ERISA actions. ). Class Counsel s request for an award of % of the recovery is consistent with the Ninth Circuit s rule that % is the appropriate benchmark for common fund fee awards: the district court should take note that % has been a proper benchmark figure, which it can then adjust upward or downward to fit the individual circumstances of this case. Such an adjustment, however, must be accompanied by a reasonable explanation of why the benchmark is unreasonable under the circumstances. Paul, Johnson, F.d at. See also Staton, F.d at ( This circuit has established % of the common fund as a benchmark award for attorney fees. ) (citation

7 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 omitted); Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., F.d 0, (th Cir. ) (affirming % fee of $0 million common fund for not only for the hours they had in the case to the date of the settlement, but for carrying the financial burden of the case, effectively prosecuting it and, by reason of their expert handling of the case, achieving a just settlement for the class. ); Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 0 F.d 0, (th Cir. 0) (affirming award of % of common fund). In Vizcaino, 0 F.d at, the Ninth Circuit, analyzing megafund cases with settlements of $0 million to $00 million, affirmed an award of % of an approximately $ million common fund in an ERISA case. In common fund settlements of less than $0 million, such as this one, courts have often awarded a higher percentage of the common fund as attorneys fees. See, e.g., In re Pacific Enterprises Sec. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. ) (affirming award equal to percent of the common fund); In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig., F. Supp., (D.D.C. ) (awarding % of $. million settlement fund). In the ERISA context courts have generally awarded similar or higher percentages, than the percentage requested here. In Vizcaino, 0 F.d, in affirming an attorneys fee award in an ERISA common fund case, the court relied on many of the same factors present here including: the exceptional results achieved for the benefit of the class, id. at ; the fact that counsel pursued this case in the absence of supporting precedents... and against Microsoft's vigorous opposition throughout the litigation, id; the risks that counsel faced in pursuing the action, id.; the fact that % was at or below the market rate, id; the fact that the litigation entailed hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense, and required counsel to forego significant other work... id. at 0. See also Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guar. Plan, 00 WL 0 (awarding a % fee of a $ million dollar settlement fund plus $ 00, in costs and expenses

8 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 in an ERISA case, noting the fee award requested was at or below the market rate for this and similar litigation ). A lodestar cross-check also confirms that the requested fee is reasonable and appropriate. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying counsel s reasonable hourly rates by the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. D Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 0 F.d, (th Cir. 0). The declarations submitted in this case and those referenced in the Martin Decl. confirm that the requested fees are reasonable. See Martin Decl., Exhibit (Declaration of Ronald Dean) & Exhibit (Declaration of Eli Gottesdiener); Declaration of Shaun Martin; Declaration of Peter Stris. See also declarations submitted in Becker v. Western Conference of Teamsters, No. CV 0-00-PHX-FJM, Docs. - (Declaration of Ron Kilgard from the firm of Keller Rohrback in Phoenix, Arizona) ; - (Declaration of Teresa Renaker from the firm of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. in Oakland, CA), - (Declaration of Edgar Pauk from New York, New York) and - (Declaration of Cassie Springer-Sullivan from the firm of Springer-Sullivan and Roberts in Oakland, CA) ). From November, 00, (after the Partial Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court), through the filing of this motion, lodestar fees are $,, which represents over, hours of time. At current hourly rates, the lodestar multiplier will be only. solely based on work performed since October, 00 through the final conclusion of this matter. This is well below the range the Ninth Circuit has found appropriate. See, e.g., Steiner v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc. 00 WL 0, at In the fee application for the Partial Settlement, Plaintiffs submitted evidence concerning their lodestar multiplier only through October, 00. As set forth in the Declaration of Susan Martin submitted herewith, the lodestar fees of $,, are fees from the November, 00 (following the Partial Settlement) through Mach 0, 0. Class Counsel has submitted evidence that its rates are customary rates in Phoenix and nationwide. Because ERISA is a federal law and attorneys practice nationwide particularly in the area of pension law, national rates should also be used. See, e.g., Torgeson v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., C0-0-MWB, 00 WL 0 (N.D. Iowa Feb., 00) (use of national rate supported because ERISA cases involve a national

9 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 * (th Cir. Aug., 00) (noting that lodestar multiplier of. still falls well within the range of multipliers that courts have allowed ); Vizcaino, 0 F.d at (Ninth Circuit affirmed fee award of % of common fund which resulted in lodestar multiplier of. and noted in Appendix, id. at, that of cases identifying multiplier, seven awarded multipliers of less than.0, eight awarded multipliers of between and, and nine awarded multipliers greater than ); City of Roseville Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 0-CV--WFD, 0 WL (D. Idaho Apr., 0) (lodestar multiplier of. is relatively standard. ); Thieriot v. Celtic Ins. Co., C--0-LB, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Apr., 0) (awarding % of settlement fund as attorneys fees based on lodestar crosscheck which resulted in multiplier of., which was within the customary range ); In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., F. Supp. d (E.D. Pa. 00) (% of the settlement fund awarded, resulting in lodestar multiplier of.). The fees requested by Class Counsel are also reasonable under the factors enumerated in Local Rule.(c)() for the reasons explained above, which are briefly summarized below: (A) The time and labor required by counsel: Class Counsel has worked on this matter for more than ten years. (Martin Decl..) As set forth above and as detailed in the Martin Decl., following the Partial Settlement through the date of filing of this motion, Class Counsel spent over, hours working on this matter. This work included engaging in extensive discovery, working with experts on damages and the settlement, attempts to obtain discovery, litigating multiple summary judgment motions standard. Thus, attorneys practicing ERISA law tend to practice in a wide variety of districts. ) (citations omitted). See also Mogck v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., F. Supp. d, (S.D. Cal. 00) ( It is appropriate to consider the declarations of attorneys in other jurisdictions because ERISA cases involve a national standard, and attorneys practicing ERISA law in the Ninth Circuit tend to practice in different districts. Furthermore, the Court observes that ERISA cases are often considered to be complex, ERISA plaintiff cases are often undesirable, and Plaintiff's attorneys possess extensive experience in ERISA law. ); Dobson v. Hartford Fin. Services Group, Inc., :CV (JBA), 00 WL (D. Conn. Aug., 00).

10 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 and getting ready for trial through Rule (a)() disclosures. (Martin Decl..) (B) The novelty and difficulty of the questions presented: This case involves difficult issues related to technical and complex areas of ERISA including, by way of example, the scope and effect of the anti-cutback rule, the exact measuring point for determining when an accrued benefit is reduced and the manner of measuring a benefit offset all of which involved extensive research of Revenue Rulings, technical procedures and other Internal Revenue Service and Treasury guidance and significant work with the actuaries. Defendants argued, inter alia, that class members were not harmed because they received benefits at the time of retirement that were higher than the benefits they had accrued at the time of the amendment, that there were no anti-cutback violations, but at most administrative errors that affected only a very small number of class members and that the statute of limitations barred these claims which were based on amendments which purported to be effective as of January,. C) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly: Class Counsel is one of a small number of plaintiffs attorneys who have the experience, skill and knowledge of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code and applicable regulations and guidance who are willing to represent retirees on a contingency basis in this sort of pension case. (Martin Decl. and Exhibit (Declaration of Ronald Dean), at -, and Exhibit, (Declaration of Eli Gottesdiener), at -.) Defendants in this case include a large Fortune 00 company that retained four large law firms for the defense and were assisted by two additional law firms which, while not on the pleadings, were actively involved in several aspects of this dispute. (D) The preclusion of other employment: As set forth in the Martin Decl., Martin & Bonnett is a small firm and can handle only a limited number of cases at any one time. The prosecution of this case was risky and occupied a significant part of Martin & Bonnett s caseload for many years. All of the firm s attorneys were often called upon to work on the case. The case was a significant factor and resulted in turning down

11 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 cases that Martin & Bonnett might otherwise have taken. (Id.) (E) The customary fee charged in matters of the type involved: As set forth herein, % of the common fund is the benchmark in this Circuit and the lodestar crosscheck of $,, is based on hourly rates that are clearly comparable to the rates of attorneys with comparable ERISA pension class action litigation experience. (F) Whether the fee contracted between the attorney and the client is fixed or contingent: The retainer agreements between Class Counsel and the named Plaintiffs as well as hundreds of other class members provided that Class Counsel was to receive the greater of the attorneys fees awarded by the Court or.% of the total recovery and a higher percentage of the total recovery in the event of an appeal. (Doc..) Class Counsel s attorneys fee application represents a downward adjustment to its contingency fee agreement. (G) Any time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances: Most of the class members are retirees who are on fixed incomes. This case could take years to achieve any further result. The Rule (a)() disclosures disclosed hundreds of potential witnesses and thousands of documents to be used at trial. The excellent results achieved at this time without trial and appeal through Class Counsel s efforts are significant and the time value of the Settlement will greatly benefit the retiree class. (H) The amount of money, or the value of the rights involved, and the results obtained: In this case, Class Counsel s efforts helped to create a settlement fund of $,000,000 in the Final Settlement in addition to the amounts obtained in the Partial Settlement. Class Counsel s actuary estimated that the value of the losses to the class would be approximately $. million under a net effect analysis. This is a substantial result for the class members. (I) The experience, reputation and ability of counsel. As set forth in the Declarations attached to and referenced in the Martin Decl.,, Class Counsel are experienced and knowledgeable ERISA attorneys with an excellent reputation. The

12 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 results in this case also establish that Class Counsel performed ably in achieving the Final Settlement. (J) The undesirability of the case: This case was undesirable because of the fact that the case stemmed from amendments that were purportedly effective as of January, and complex ERISA principles. The case was further undesirable because of the risk involved, the large size of the class which would make an early settlement difficult and the costs and expenses of litigation. The records offered by Defendants also reveal that some class members had in fact been turned down by other attorneys. Given the degree of undesirability, and the significant risks and challenges undertaken, a % fee award from the common fund plus costs to be paid by Defendants is reasonable. (K) The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and client: Class Counsel undertook this case, although it had no prior agreement with the named Plaintiffs and agreed to do so on a contingency basis. Class Counsel worked on this matter for more than ten years. Plaintiffs filed administrative claims in 00 and the administrative appeal was decided in 00. Litigation commenced more than eight years ago in March 00. (L) Awards in similar actions: The Ninth Circuit has held that % is the benchmark in common fund actions and has affirmed or awarded more than this amount in similar cases. Given the type of case and the fund created when compared to similar cases, % is a reasonable award. B. Class Counsel s Request for Costs to Be Paid by Defendants is Appropriate Pursuant to the terms of the Final Settlement, Plaintiffs also seek approval for payment of $00,000 for costs and expenses to be paid directly by Defendants, independent of the $ million common benefit fund, for the costs and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action. (See Doc. -, at Section.0.) This case was extremely expensive to prosecute. As set forth in the Martin Decl. 0, to date, the expenses incurred in this litigation total over $,,0. The costs and expenses following the

13 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Partial Settlement alone will likely exceed the $00,000 that Defendants agreed to pay in the Final Settlement Agreement. More than $, in costs and expenses have been incurred to date since the Partial Settlement. There will be additional costs and expenses incurred by Class Counsel including significant additional expenses for the actuary and claims administrator. Class Counsel is also planning to refund $,0. in costs paid by the Garrett Retirees Action Committee during this litigation along with other costs borne by the Committee for communicating with class members (including hosting and updating a website that kept class members advised of the status of the lawsuit and updates to class members who did not have ). Class Counsel also intends to reimburse the Committee for the expenses that will be incurred by the Committee in refunding amounts that were paid to the Committee by Class Members to help fund the litigation expenses. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the motion for attorneys fees, costs be granted and that the Court award attorneys fees in the amount of $,0,000 (% of the Settlement Fund) plus costs and expenses in the amount of $00,000 to be paid directly by the Defendants, independent of the $ million Settlement Fund, pursuant to Section.0 of the Final Settlement Agreement. Respectfully submitted this 0 th day of March, 0. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. By: s/susan Martin Susan Martin Daniel L. Bonnett Jennifer L. Kroll 0 N. Central Ave. Suite 0 Phoenix, AZ 00 (0) 0-00 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14 Case :0-cv-00-ROS Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 0, 0, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants. David B. Rosenbaum Dawn L. Dauphine Osborn Maledon, P.A. North Central Ave., Suite 0 Phoenix, AZ 0- Michael Banks Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 0 Market Street Philadelphia, PA Howard Shapiro Robert W. Rachal Stacey Cerrone Bridgit DePietto Proskauer Rose LLP 0 Poydras Street, Suite 00 New Orleans, LA 0-0 Amy Covert Proskauer Rose LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 0- Telephone: () - Craig Primis Michael Williams Kirkland & Ellis LLP Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 000 Attorneys for the Defendants s/j. Kroll