LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SONET v PLUM CREEK TIMBER Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,639, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: SONET, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016639, Sonet, Fee, Hourly Rates, Discovery, Settlement, Reasonableness, Unitholders, Reit, Basis, Plum Creek, Esquires, Partnership, Multiple, Contingent, Amount, Conversion, Dismiss, Disclosures, Meruit, Distributions, Motion, Compensation, Reallocate, Chancellor, Determination, Delaware, Reasonable Fee, Auantum Meruit, Wilmington, Chancery, Plum Creek Timber, Plum Creek Management, Advisory, Silverman, Harnes, York, Defendant Plum Creek, Thomas, Quality, Risk, Compensates, Lodestar, Del, Supr , ContentID: 120239767

Case Documents
1 1999-08-10 MEMORANDUM OPINION (REVISED
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103666
2 pages
PDF
2 1999-08-05 MEMORANDUM OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100351
12 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 2 documents , 14 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . MEMORANDUM OPINION (REVISED)

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
ESQUIRES
COUNSEL
DELAWARE
PLUM CREEK
ATTORNEYS
REASONABLE FEE
AUANTUM MERUIT
WILMINGTON
HOURLY RATES
MULTIPLE
CHANCERY
PLUM CREEK TIMBER
PLUM CREEK MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY
SILVERMAN
HARNES
YORK
DEFENDANT PLUM CREEK
THOMAS
QUALITY
RISK
SONET
COMPENSATES
LODESTAR
DEL
SUPR
CONSISTENT-WITH
CUSTOMARILY UTILIZED COUNSELS
     IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                    IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
JERROLD M. SONET,                         ..
                                          .
                  Plai:ntiff,

      V.                                              Civil Action Nos. 16639
                                                                            - -.--
                                                          and 16931
PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY,
L.P., PLUM CREEK MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, L.P., and PC ADVISORY
CORP. I,

                  Defendants. ..                                               ^
                                          .

                                                                        1'          1
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION                            * "
                                                                       `...I  I

                                                                       _
                                                                       I...
                  Date Submitted:         July 1, 1999
                  Date Decided:        August 5, 1999
                  Date Revised:        August lo? 1999

Joseph A. Rosenthal and Carmella P. Keener, Esquires, of ROSENTHAL,
MONHAIT, GROSS & GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; and Sidney B.
Silverman, Esquire, of SILVERMAN, HARNES, HARNES, PRUSSIN &
KELLER, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff

Edward P. Welch, Andrew J. Turezyn and Stephen D. Dargitz, Esquires, of
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorneys for Defendant Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P

Jesse A. Finkelstein and Srinivas M. Ragu, Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON &
FINGER, Wilmington, Delaware; and Robert A. Sacks and Steven W. Thomas,
Esquires, of SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for
Defendants Plum Creek Management Company, L.P. and P.C. Advisory Corp. I.


JACOBS, VICE CHANCELLOR



capture the elements of benefit achieved, quality of counsels' effort, and

SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY, L.P., PLUM CREEK MANAGEMENT
  • COMPANY, L.P., and PC ADVISORY
  • Joseph A. Rosenthal and Carmella P. Keener, Esquires, of ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS & GODDESS,
  • Edward P. Welch, Andrew J. Turezyn and Stephen D. Dargitz, Esquires, of SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
  • contingency risk that the Court must consider.
  • Counsel did an excellent job in Sonet II,
  • In my opinion a reasonable fee from a auantum meruit
  • standpoint that fairly compensates counsel for the quality of their efforts,
  • 5The approach of determining a "lodestar" fee (attorney time multiplied by actual hourly
  • Sugarland v. Thomas, Del.
  • Supr., 420 A.2d 142.
  • Nor is that approach consistent-with the auantum meruit method of determining a reasonable
  • In applying that approach, this Court has customarily utilized counsels' customary hourly

  • 2 . MEMORANDUM OPINION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FEE
    COUNSEL
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    DISCOVERY
    SETTLEMENT
    REASONABLENESS
    UNITHOLDERS
    HOURLY RATES
    REIT
    BASIS
    PARTNERSHIP
    CONTINGENT
    AMOUNT
    ATTORNEYS
    CONVERSION
    DISMISS
    DISCLOSURES
    MERUIT
    MULTIPLE
    DEFENDANTS
    PLUM CREEK
    DISTRIBUTIONS
    MOTION
    COMPENSATION
    REALLOCATE
    CHANCELLOR
    ESQUIRES
    DETERMINATION
    
                                                                                          7 i- .,
                                                                                         y-4
                                                                                         /+" "2'
         IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                        IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    JERROLD M. SONET,                         ""
    
                      Plaintiff,
    
          V.                                  ..          Civil Action Nos. 16639 /`*
                                              ..              and 1693 1
    PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY,                :
    L.P., PLUM  CREEK MANAGEMENT              :
    COMPANY, L.P., and PC ADVISORY            :
    CORP. I,                                  .
                      Defendants.             ..
    
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
    
                      Date Submitted:         July 1, 1999
                      Date
    
    Joseph A. Rosenthal and Carmella P. Keener, Esquires, of R.OSENTHAL,
    MONHAIT, GROSS & GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; and Sidney B.
    Silverman, Esquire, of SILVERMAN, HARNES, HARNES, PRUSSJN &
    KELLER, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
    Edward P. Welch, Andrew J. Turezyn and Stephen D. Dargitz, Esquires, of
    SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware,
    Attorneys for Defendant Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P
    
    Jesse A. Finkelstein and Srinivas M. Ragu, Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON &
    FINGER, Wilmington, Delaware; and Robert A. Sacks and Steven W. Thomas,
    Esquires, of SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for
    Defendants Plum Creek Management Company, L.P. and P.C. Advisory Corp. I.
    
    
    JACOBS, VICE CHANCELLOR
    
    
    
          This pending application for attorneys' fees arises out of a settlement of two
    
    related actions: Sonet v. Plum Creek Management Co., L.P., Del. Ch., C.A. No.
    
    l6639 ("Sonet  I") and Sonet v. Plum CreekManagement  Co., L.P., Del. Ch., C.A.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Joseph A. Rosenthal and Carmella P. Keener, Esquires, of R.OSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS &
  • Jesse A. Finkelstein and Srinivas M. Ragu, Esquire, of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, Wilmington,
  • This pending application for attorneys' fees arises out of a settlement of two
  • l6639 ("Sonet I") and Sonet v. Plum CreekManagement Co., L.P., Del.
  • reserved decision on plaintiff's attorneys' fee application.
  • was an action challenging a proposed conversion of a limited partnership,
  • ascending percentage interest in all distributions in excess elf $0.21 2/3 per Unit
  • converted into a 27% equity interest in the REIT.
  • The Court granted the plaintiffs motion to expedite the proceedings,
  • Expedited discovery took place
  • The Court also scheduled a hearing for the defendants' motion to
  • taken Chancellor Chandler granted the motion to dismiss.
  • the Unitholders had contracted away their right
  • transaction.* The plaintiffs appealed the order dis-missing Sonet I to the Supreme
  • 1999.2 In that Opinion this Court ruled that the proxy disclosures
  • The Counsel Fee Application
  • million -- was entirely contingent upon the success -- or failure -- of the REIT
  • their fee should be determined on a quantum meruit basis;
  • The amount of the requested fee, which was separate from the Sonet Icontingent
  • Court's concern was that by seeking to reallocate that time to Sonet II,
  • counsels' claimed hourly rates) noncontingent, an.d then by seeking to double that
  • augmented amount by applying a multiple of 2.
  • presented the reasonableness of the fee application could not be assessed.
  • counsel of compensation for taking the discovery that led to the grant of injunctive
  • method of fee determination used by some federal courts.
  •    |