357 F. Supp. 3d 1094
D. Kan.2018Background
- Hundreds of suits by U.S. corn producers and related industry plaintiffs alleged Syngenta marketed MIR 162 trait seed (Viptera/Duracade) without Chinese approval, causing commingling, Chinese import rejections, and depressed U.S. corn prices.
- MDL consolidation (D. Kan.) and parallel state cases (notably Minnesota) produced massive discovery, multiple dispositive rulings, and a three‑week Kansas class trial that returned a $217.7M verdict for a Kansas non‑purchaser class.
- After multi‑forum coordination, a Plaintiffs’ Negotiation Committee, and special master‑supervised bargaining, parties executed a $1.51 billion global settlement allocating funds among four settlement subclasses (non‑purchaser producers, purchaser producers, grain handlers, ethanol producers) with a claims and opt‑out process.
- Court granted preliminary approval, provided robust notice, and held a final fairness hearing; few class members opted out and relatively few objected.
- The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), overruled objections, finally certified the settlement class and subclasses, and approved administrators and special masters.
- The court awarded attorney fees equal to one‑third of the $1.51B fund ($503,333,333.33) after applying the Johnson factors and a lodestar cross‑check, and granted the special master $205,720.10 for mediation expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final approval of $1.51B settlement (Rule 23(e)) | Settlement was the product of arm’s‑length negotiations, followed extensive litigation and trial, and provides immediate substantial recovery | Syngenta opposed but agreed to the settlement terms during negotiation; specific objectors claimed unfair allocations or procedures | Settlement approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e); notice and claims process adequate |
| Objections to settlement terms and procedures (allocation, notice, claim formulas) | Objectors claimed improper equal treatment of individual/class plaintiffs, lack of choice‑of‑law analysis, problematic use of govt data and county averages, and potential residual funds issues | Plaintiffs argued allocation formulas, use of government acreage data, and county averages are reasonable and efficient; residual funds unlikely and administrable | All timely objections overruled; withdrawn objections approved; allocation and procedures sustained |
| Class certification for settlement (Rule 23 requirements) | Plaintiffs sought certification of nationwide settlement class and four subclasses, citing predominance and common questions | Objectors argued predominance fails, subclass treatment unfair to certain members, and some state claims stronger | Court confirmed settlement class/subclasses satisfy Rule 23; common questions predominate and class treatment is superior in settlement context |
| Attorneys’ fees from common fund — one‑third request | Class counsel requested one‑third of fund based on time/effort, novelty/difficulty, results, customary contingent rates, and lodestar cross‑check (multiplier ~1.4) | Objectors urged lower percentage especially in megafund cases and compared to other large‑settlement percentages | Court awarded one‑third ($503,333,333.33); applied Johnson factors, found substantial time, novelty, skill, risk, results, and reasonable lodestar multiplier supporting the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (recognizing common‑fund entitlement to reasonable attorney fees)
- Gottlieb v. Barry, 43 F.3d 474 (applying common‑fund principles in the Tenth Circuit)
- Rosenbaum v. MacAllister, 64 F.3d 1439 (Tenth Circuit preference for percentage‑of‑fund method)
- Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 838 F.2d 451 (directing use of Johnson factors in percentage fee awards)
- Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 9 F.3d 849 (noting that not all Johnson factors apply in common‑fund cases)
- Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (addressing treatment of residual funds and ripeness of cy pres challenges)
- Fogie v. THORN Americas, Inc., 190 F.3d 889 (rejecting premature ordering of cy pres before knowing residual funds)