In Re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, 953 F. Supp. 2d 82

This case arises from consolidated Section 14012 actions (post-Pigford) by thousands of African American farmers seeking adjudication of previously untimely Pigford claims; Congress appropriated $1.25 billion (including $1.15B via the Claims Resolution Act) to fund a settlement and claims process.
Parties negotiated and the Court approved a Settlement Agreement establishing a non‑judicial claims resolution process and a common fund (the Fee Base) from which attorneys' fees (between 4.1% and 7.4% of the fund) and claim awards would be paid.
Class counsel moved for fees at the maximum 7.4% ($90,835,000). The government opposed and argued for a 4.1% award, citing limited complexity/duration, time spent, and the need to preserve funds for claimants.
The Court evaluated fee reasonableness under the percentage-of-the-fund framework, applying a seven‑factor inquiry (size of fund/beneficiaries, objections, counsel skill, complexity/duration, risk of nonpayment, time spent, awards in similar cases) and also performed a lodestar cross-check.
The Claims Administrator later reported that provisional Track A awards will likely be payable in full and that sufficient funds exist to pay claimants even if the full 7.4% fee and implementation costs are paid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 7.4% fee of the common fund is reasonable	Class counsel: 7.4% is within the Settlement Agreement range and justified by counsel's work, risk, hours, and comparable awards	Govt: reduce to 4.1% because case was short, less complex, fewer typical litigation tasks, and fees reduce funds for claimants	Court awarded 7.4% — full requested amount
Proper method to determine fees (percentage vs. lodestar)	Use percentage-of-fund; lodestar may be used as a cross-check	Govt sought more granular lodestar scrutiny to lower fee	Court used percentage method (appropriate here) and accepted a lodestar cross-check as confirmatory
Adequacy of class notice and presence of objections to fees	Class counsel: notice sufficed; few and unsubstantial objections	Govt: claimed many class members would object and fee should be limited to preserve fund	Court found only sparse/insubstantial objections and considered notice adequate
Whether counsel faced risk of nonpayment and expended compensable time/expenses	Class counsel: took contingency risk, advanced substantial out-of-pocket costs and many thousands of hours	Govt: contended hours inflated and work largely "piggybacked" on Pigford; therefore lower fee warranted	Court found substantial risk, heavy time and expense investments, and accepted counsel's time estimates; these support the 7.4% award

Swedish Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (endorses percentage-of-the-fund method in common-fund cases)
In re Black Farmers Discr. Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) (prior opinion approving settlement and discussing fee-range reasonableness)
Trombley v. Nat'l City Bank, 826 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2011) (describing factors for percentage-of-recovery analysis)
In re Baan Co. Sec. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2003) (common-fund doctrine and fee awards)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness of attorney fees and relation to results obtained)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (megafund fee guidance; smaller percentages for very large funds)
Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2000) (lodestar cross-check endorsed as useful confirmatory tool)