In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation

*758

ORDER & REASONS

ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge.

The Court has previously determined the value of the common benefit work in the Vioxx MDL and associated state litigations which produced the global settlement of November 9, 2007.

In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,

760 F.Supp.2d 640 (E.D.La.2010) (“October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons”). The value was fixed at 6.5% of the $4.85 billion settlement amount for a total of Three Hundred and Fifteen Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($315,250,000.00). Now, the Court must allocate those common benefit attorneys’ fees among the attorneys who did the work which produced this settlement. This allocation is in addition to common benefit costs, which have already been distributed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

To put this matter in perspective, a brief review of this litigation is appropriate.

A. Vioxx Litigation and Settlement

This multidistrict products liability litigation involves the prescription drug Vioxx, known generieally as Rofeeoxib. Merck, a New Jersey corporation, researched, designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed Vioxx to relieve pain and inflammation resulting from osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, menstrual pain, and migraine headaches. On May 20, 1999, the Food and Drug Administration approved Vioxx for sale in the United States. Vioxx remained publicly available until September 20, 2004, when Merck

*759

withdrew it from the market after data from a clinical trial known as APPROVe indicated that the use of Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events such as myocardial infarction (heart attack) and ischemic stroke. Thereafter, thousands of individual lawsuits and numerous class actions were filed against Merck in state and federal courts throughout the country alleging various products liability, tort, fraud, and warranty claims. It is estimated that 105 million prescriptions for Vioxx were written in the United States between May 20, 1999 and September 30, 2004. Based on this estimate, it is thought that approximately 20 million patients have taken Vioxx in the United States.

1

California was the first state to institute a consolidated state court proceeding on October 30, 2002. New Jersey and Texas soon followed suit, on May 20, 2003 and September 6, 2005, respectively. On February 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) conferred MDL status on Vioxx lawsuits filed in various federal courts throughout the country and transferred all such cases to this Court to coordinate discovery and to consolidate pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 .

See In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,

360 F.Supp.2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005). Even after the creation of this federal MDL, many cases remained pending in the various state courts, particularly the courts in California, New Jersey, and Texas. It is estimated that the census of the litigation totaled over 50,000 claims.

On March 18, 2005, this Court held the first status conference in the Vioxx MDL to discuss procedures for moving this matter forward. Shortly thereafter, the Court appointed steering committees of counsel to represent the parties. In addition, the Court announced at monthly meetings that any attorney who was not appointed but who wished to do common benefit work on behalf of Vioxx claimants could do so by joining a subcommittee. The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) was encouraged to establish subcommittees and include non-PSC members on these subcommittees.

2

Furthermore, to give transparency to this litigation, the Court created a web site accessible to all counsel and the public at large. All motions, Court orders, opinions, recent developments, a calendar of scheduled events, transcripts of hearings, and various other matters were posted on this web site.

3

Throughout the litigation monthly status conferences were held in open court. Notice of the meetings were posted on the web site and were open to all. The Court established a call-in number for those unable to attend in person, and also posted transcripts of the conferences on its web site.

Discovery rapidly commenced. The common benefit attorneys were responsible for all aspects of pre-trial preparation, including document discovery, the taking of depositions, preparation of experts, motions practice, and to some extent, coordination of federal and state court proceedings. Over nine million documents were discovered and collated. Thousands of depositions were taken and at least 1,000 discovery motions were argued to the Court. After a reasonable period for discovery, the Court assisted the parties in

*760

selecting and preparing certain test cases for bellwether trials. Additionally, a number of similar trials were scheduled in state courts.

This Court conducted six Vioxx bellwether trials.

4

The first of the bellwether trials took place in Houston, Texas, while this Court was displaced following Hurricane Katrina. The five subsequent bellwether trials took place in New Orleans, Louisiana. Only one of the trials resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Of the five remaining trials, one resulted in a hung jury and four resulted in verdicts for the defendant. During the same period that this Court was conducting six bellwether trials, approximately thirteen additional Vioxx-related cases were tried before juries in the state courts of Texas, New Jersey, California, Alabama, Illinois, and Florida.

After extensive discovery, after the bellwether trials were completed, and after a number of trials were completed in state courts, this Court and courts from Texas, New Jersey, and California met in New Orleans with a representative of the Board of Merck, their attorneys, and representatives of the PSC. The Judges suggested that it was an appropriate time to explore a global resolution of this litigation.

5

Negotiating Plaintiffs’ Counsel (“the NPC”) were appointed to explore and engage in settlement discussions with Merck. Counsel for Merck and the NPC met together more than fifty times and held several hundred telephone conferences. Although the parties met and negotiated independently, they kept this Court and the coordinate state courts of Texas, New Jersey, and California informed of their progress in settlement discussions.

On November 9, 2007, Merck and the NPC formally announced that they had reached a Settlement Agreement.

See

Settlement Agreement,

In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,

MDL 1657 (E.D.La. Nov. 9, 2007) (“Settlement Agreement” or “MSA”),

available at http://www. broumgreer.com/vioxxsettlement.

The private Settlement Agreement establishes a voluntary, opt-in pre-funded program for resolving pending or tolled state and federal Vioxx claims against Merck as of the date of the settlement, involving claims of heart attack (“MI”), ischemic stroke (“IS”), and sudden cardiac death (“SCD”), for an overall amount of $4.85 billion.

Id.

§ “Recitals”.

6

Merck retained a walk away right to terminate the Settlement Program and Agreement if fewer than 85% of eligible participants enrolled in the Program.

See generally

art. 11. The MSA was designed to provide a fair and efficient means to

*761

compensate claimants who could present objective evidence of Vioxx usage and an associated MI, IS, or SCD injury. Claimants enrolled in the Program by signing a release, which would be delivered to Merck once the claim was paid or the claimant had elected to pursue other avenues for the amicable resolution of their claims pursuant to the terms of the MSA. After enrolling, claimants or their primary attorneys gathered and submitted medical records to the Claims Administrator for processing and review, as set forth in the Agreement. The deadlines for submitting records were extended several times.

Each claimant’s records were assessed pursuant to three “Gates”: Injury, Duration, and Proximity, which required the claimant to provide evidence of a qualifying MI, IS, or SCD injury; receipt of 30 Vioxx pills within a 60 day period prior to the injury; and use of those pills at a time close to the injury. There were multiple layers of review for eligibility, including initial review by the Claims Administrator, an opportunity to submit additional records, review by a Gates Committee consisting of counsel for claimants and counsel for Merck, and a further opportunity for Merck to include the claim in the Program. If after that process a claim did not pass one of the Gates, the claimant could appeal to the Court-appointed Special Master for a final and binding review, or alternatively get off of the Settlement tracks and resume their lawsuit by filing a Future Evidence Stipulation and proceeding to trial. Claimants who qualified for the program were assigned points based on objective risk factors and the nature and extent of their injury, and were entitled to similar review of those calculations. Thus, the Settlement Program included an exit opportunity and multiple layers of review to ensure that claims received ample process.

The Settlement Agreement expressly contemplates that this Court will oversee various aspects of the administration of settlement proceedings, including appointing a Fee Allocation Committee (“FAC”), allocating a percentage of the settlement proceeds to a Common Benefit Fund, approving a cost assessment, and modifying any provisions of the Settlement Agreement that are otherwise unenforceable.

7

This is consistent with the inherent duty of an MDL transferee court. Accordingly, this Court has exercised its inherent authority over the MDL proceedings,

see

Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) §§ 10.224, 14.215-16, 14.231-.216 (2004), in coordination with its express authority under the terms of the Settlement Agreement to ensure that the settlement proceedings move forward in a uniform and efficient manner.

8

On July 17, 2008, Merck formally announced that it was satisfied that the thresholds necessary to trigger funding of the Vioxx Settlement Program would be

*762

met.

See Minute Enti% July 17, 2008,

Ree. Doc. 15362 (July 17, 2008). Merck further advised that it intended to waive its walk-away privileges and that it would commence funding the Vioxx Settlement Program by depositing an initial sum of $500 million into the settlement fund, clearing the way for distribution of interim payments to eligible claimants.

Id.

Eventually some 99.9% of all eligible claimants enrolled in the program.

The Settlement Program proceeded at a very rapid rate and Merck made additional payments in order to ensure that the claimants would receive funds in a timely fashion. Final payments to heart attack claimants were completed prior to October 14, 2009, final payments to stroke claimants were completed by June 14, 2010, and final extraordinary injury payments (i.e., payments to those who incurred or sustained extraordinary losses) were completed by June 29, 2010. Thus, in only 31 months, the parties to this MDL case were able to reach a global settlement and distribute Four Billion, Three Hundred and Fifty-three Million, One Hundred Fifty-two Thousand and Sixty-four Dollars ($4,353,152,064) to 32,886 claimants, out of a pool of 49,893 eligible and enrolled claimants. This efficiency is unprecedented in mass tort settlements of this size. It was due in large part to the ability, industry, and professionalism of the attorneys for both sides, the plan administrators, the lien administrators, the pro se curator, and the special masters.

B. Procedures for Performing and Documenting Common Benefit Work

1) Pre-Settlement Procedures

As previously mentioned, from the very beginning of this MDL, and before the Settlement Agreement was contemplated or announced, steps were taken to create a fair and open environment for all interested attorneys to perform work for the common benefit of the Vioxx plaintiffs and to create a transparent factual record for an eventual application for common benefit fees.

Thirteen members, including Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel (“PLC”), were appointed to the PSC. Pretrial Order No. 6 (Apr. 8, 2005). Appointment of a supervising Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee is necessary to create centralized leadership and control of litigation of this magnitude. But the Court, the plaintiffs, and the justice system in general also have an interest in broadening the range of attorney participation in MDL cases, lest the work be confined to a specialized bar of MDL attorneys which would result in exclusivity, unfairness, and discrimination, and inure to the disadvantage of litigants and their attorneys. Therefore, as mentioned above, the Court authorized and encouraged the PSC to “organiz[e] subcommittees comprised of plaintiffs’ attorneys not on the PSC and assign[] them tasks consistent with the duties of the PSC.” Pretrial Order 6 (Apr. 8, 2005). All interested attorneys, including those in the state court litigations, were encouraged to coordinate with the PSC and to do work for the common benefit. Over one hundred firms or attorneys availed themselves of the opportunity to perform common benefit work.

To receive and vet records of the time spent and expenses incurred by attorneys performing common benefit work, the Court appointed a CPA, Phillip Garrett.

Id.

Those doing common benefit work and incurring common benefit expenses were ordered to report their hours and expenses contemporaneously to the Court-appointed CPA for review and reporting to the Court.

9

Time and Expense Guidelines

*763

were established to govern “all activities performed and expenses incurred by counsel that relate to matters common to all claimants in MDL 1657.”

Id.

at 4.

Early in the litigation, the Court entered Pretrial Order No. 19, which established a Plaintiffs’ Litigation Expense Fund to compensate and reimburse attorneys for services performed and expenses incurred for the common benefit. Pursuant to this Order, any case that was settled, compromised, dismissed, or otherwise reduced to judgment for monetary relief, with or without trial, was subject to an assessment. In order to avail themselves of the benefit of the initial work of the common benefit attorneys, individual plaintiffs’ counsel could, for a limited time, enter into a contract that was to dictate the assessment amount. The “Full Participation Option,” which was one such option, established an assessment of 2% of the recovery for fees and

1%

of the recovery for costs.

See

Pretrial Order No. 19 (Aug. 4, 2005). Counsel were able to select the “Full Participation Option” within 90 days of the entry of Pretrial Order 19. Following that period, counsel could accept a “Traditional Assessment Option” providing for 6% assessment of recoveries in MDL cases and 4% assessment of recoveries in state court cases.

As mentioned above, the case then proceeded through a period of extensive discovery, pretrial motions,

Daubert

hearings, six MDL bellwether trials, and over a dozen trials in state court. After several years, the settlement occurred.

2) Post-Settlement Procedures

When consummated, the Settlement Agreement modified the landscape regarding common benefit attorneys’ fees for those interested in participating in the settlement. The Settlement Agreement provides for a common benefit fee assessment to create a common benefit fund, to “be administered by the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon,” and to be awarded “upon due consideration by him in consultation with the Honorable Victoria G. Chaney, the Honorable Carol E. Higbee, and the Honorable Randy Wilson, and in accordance with established Fifth Circuit precedent.”

Id.

§ 9.2.3. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement states that this contractual common benefit fee assessment supersedes the assessments provided for in Pretrial Order No. 19.

Id.

(“The maximum 8% attorneys’ fee assessment shall supersede the assessment provided to MDL

common

benefit attorneys pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 19.”). Those who were not interested in participating in the settlement could proceed with their case and avail themselves of the common benefit work for the original assessment set forth in PTO 19.

The Settlement Agreement also addressed procedures regarding how the common benefit fund would be distributed, to which all parties to the Agreement consented. The Settlement Agreement called for appointment by the Court of a committee of plaintiffs’ attorneys to recommend an allocation of common benefit fees:

The Honorable Eldon E. Fallon will be asked to appoint a committee of eight plaintiffs’ counsel which shall include all members of the [Negotiating Plaintiffs’ Committee] and two additional plaintiffs’ attorneys to be responsible for recommending ... the allocation of awards of attorneys’ fees from the Settlement Fee and Cost Account. In making its recommendation, the “Allocation Committee” is to review the contemporaneous time records, or properly reconstructed time records and expense reports of all plain

*764

tiffs’ counsel that request compensation for common benefit work, as audited by the CPA firm of Wegmann Dazet. The Allocation Committee shall take into consideration the common benefit work of counsel in the MDL, and the work of counsel in the state litigations in Texas, California and New Jersey. The Allocation Committee shall be guided by these objective measures of common benefit counsel’s contributions, in addition to their subjective understanding of the relative contributions of counsel towards generating the Settlement Fund in accordance with established fee jurisprudence and subject to the approval of the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon in consultation with the Honorable Victoria G. Chaney, the Honorable Carol E. Higbee, and the Honorable Randy Wilson.

Id.

at § 9.2.4. The Settlement also stated that the Court “provide appropriate notices governing the procedure by which [the Court] shall determine common benefit attorneys’ fees ... including Common Benefit Attorneys’ joint submission of papers by the PLC requesting compensation for their common benefit work.... [The Court] shall insure that there is ample opportunity for objections and comments to the application and a notice of hearing regarding the same.”

Id.

at § 9.2.5.

The provisions of the Settlement Agreement correspond to the Court’s inherent authority to award common benefit attorneys’ fees out of a limited fund created by the work of those attorneys,

see

October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons, 760 F.Supp.2d at 647-49 , and the Court’s inherent authority to appoint a committee of plaintiffs’ attorneys to recommend an allocation of common benefit fees,

see In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation,

517 F.3d 220 , 227 (5th Cir.2008)

(“High Sulfur I

”).

The Court exercised its inherent authority as well as its express authority under the MSA by appointing nine members to a Fee Allocation Committee (“FAC”).

See

Pre-Trial Order No. 32 (Nov. 20, 2007). The FAC appointees were heavily involved in the MDL and in the associated state-court litigations and had firsthand knowledge of the nature and extent of the common benefit work which was done and who did it. The Court appointed to the FAC some attorneys who were not on the PSC; thus, the FAC was comprised of both “insiders” and “outsiders” to the MDL leadership, who could bring a wide perspective to assessing all work done for the common benefit both in the MDL and in state court. The makeup of the FAC was intended to provide a broad range of experience and opinions to ensure that an eventual recommended allocation would not over- or under-emphasize the contribution of any attorney in any venue with respect to any aspect of the litigation.

The FAC was charged first with obtaining supporting evidence from every attorney or firm who had performed common benefit work and sought an award of common benefit attorneys’ fees. On September 15, 2008, the Court issued Pre-Trial Order 6D, setting forth procedures and guidelines for the FAC to follow in preparing an eventual recommended allocation. Pursuant to PTO 6D, “any attorney wishing to have their time considered for an allocation of any common benefit award” was directed to submit a three-page written affidavit to the FAC articulating their contribution, with emphasis on factors including “substantial contribution to the outcome of the litigation,” quality of work, “consistency quantum, duration, and intensity of ... commitment to the litigation,” “level of partner participation,” committee membership and leadership positions, the “jurisdiction in which non-MDL common benefit work occurred,” “[a]ctivities surrounding trials of individual Vioxx claimants, including bellwether trials and non-

*765

MDL trials that impacted proceedings on a common benefit level,” participation in ongoing work for the common benefit, involvement in Vioxx litigation prior to withdrawal of Vioxx from the market or the MDL, contribution to funding of the litigation, commitment to the litigation after adverse verdicts, and any other relevant factors. Over one hundred firms or attorneys submitted common benefit time and costs to the Court-appointed CPA. The FAC received almost twenty-four hundred pages of affidavits and supporting documentation, all of which were entered into the record of this proceeding.

Also pursuant to PTO 6D, the FAC conducted in-person, on-the-record meetings at which all interested common benefit submitters were invited to “appear and present the reasons, grounds and explanations for their entitlement to common benefit fees and reimbursement of expenses.” The FAC conducted hearings in the epicenters of Vioxx litigation in Atlantic City, New Jersey; New Orleans, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; and Los Angeles, California. Over forty-five firms out of the more than one hundred firms or attorneys that applied for common benefit fees availed themselves of this opportunity, and the hearings produced over eighteen hundred pages of transcripts from the common benefit fee applicants.

Finally, pursuant to PTO 6D and the MSA, the PLC moved on January 20, 2009 for a common benefit fee award of 8% of the $4.85 billion settlement amount. The PLC’s motion was posted on the Court’s website and on April 17, 2009, the Court invited any interested party to file a Notice of Objection on or before May 8, 2009. After receiving numerous objections, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to appoint a Liaison Counsel for the Common Benefit Fee Application Objectors (“Percentage-Fee Objectors”). Michael Stratton was selected by the Percentage-Fee Objectors for this role.

See

Pretrial Order No. 52 (Sept. 30, 2009). Thereafter, numerous status conferences were convened, discovery was taken, briefing was submitted, and arguments were heard. As a result of that process, the Objectors withdrew their objections and the PLC reduced its request to a common benefit fee award of 7.5%.

The PLC’s renewed motion was heard in open court. After the hearing, the motion was taken under submission and on October 19, 2010, the Court issued an Order and Reasons setting the amount of common benefit fees to be awarded and allocated between attorneys who did common benefit work in the MDL and coordinated state litigations. October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons, 760 F.Supp.2d 640 . In fixing the common benefit fee, the Court analyzed the applicable law and concluded that a blended percentage approach to determining common benefit attorney’s fees was appropriate.

Id.

at 650-52 . After a thorough review of the common benefit fee awards and set-asides in comparable MDLs and consideration of the

Johnson

factors as required by the Fifth Circuit, the Court determined that 6.5% of the settlement amount was appropriate compensation for the common benefit work done in this case.

See id.

at 652-58 . Thus a common benefit award of 6.5% of the total settlement, or a sum of $315,250,000.00, was rendered.

See id.

at 658 . The common benefit fee is to come from the attorneys’ fees of primary counsel and is not an additional fee borne by the litigants.

Id.

at 655 .

To test the validity of this common benefit award, a rough lodestar cross-check was conducted.

See id.

at 658-62 . Without delving extensively into individual time submissions, the Court used the submitted time

in globo,

to verify that a 6.5% award was not excessive or windfall compensation for the common benefit work actually done

*766

in the Vioxx litigation. The Court took the sum total of hours submitted to and vetted by Philip Garrett, the Court-appointed CPA, and multiplied those hours by the average of attorneys’ actual billing rates to generate a time-fee value of the common benefit work of approximately $249,546,751.20.

See id.

at 659-61 . Comparing the two values

(ie.,

$315,250,000.00 and $249,546,751.20), it is apparent that the 6.5% figure represented only a 1.2633 multiplier over the time-fee value of the common benefit work, a multiplier that was within the range supported by the legal literature and the case law.

10

See id.

at 661-62 . Accordingly, the rough lodestar cross-check supported the percentage award fixed by the Court, consistent with percentage awards in other cases. But it bears repeating that the common benefit award of $315,250,000.00 was a percentage award supported by a lodestar value, and not generated in the first instance by the time-fee value. For the purpose of performing this cross-check, the Court did not closely scrutinize the hours involved or make any finding as to the amount of the common benefit fee to which anyone who submitted those hours would be entitled, and expressly stated that use of the aggregate of submitted hours did “not preclude the [FAC] or the Court from disallowing any particular submissions of common benefit time when allocating the common benefit fee award.”

See id.

at 660-61

&

n. 22. Nor does it prohibit the Court from prioritizing certain common benefit work when dividing the fund among the applicants.

In the October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons, the Court also reiterated and elaborated on the procedure by which it would allocate that total award of common benefit fees.

See id.

at 662 . Under this Order, the FAC would first prepare a suggested distribution in accordance with the Court’s announced guidelines and based on the affidavits and testimony gathered by the FAC as well as the FAC members’ personal experience with the litigation. If disputes regarding that suggested allocation arose, the Court would appoint a Special Master to take additional evidence, if necessary, and to evaluate the disputed recommendation. Thereafter, the Special Master would submit a second impartial report to the Court, and the Court would make the ultimate determination based on the FAC’s recommendation, the objections, the special master’s impartial report, and all the evidence proffered during those proceedings, as well as the Court’s own experience with the litigation.

Shortly after issuance of the October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons, the FAC informed the Court that it was preparing its proposed recommendation as to how the total amount should be allocated, pursuant to the Court’s Orders and guidance. The Court met with the FAC and suggested that it consider devising objective categories for types of work done for common benefit, based on the relative significance of that work in bringing about the ultimate successful resolution of this litigation. Even if all of the approved hours logged by the plaintiffs’ attorneys who performed common benefit work were helpful, clearly some of the work performed was more helpful and deserves greater compensation.

The FAC proposed a preliminary, “penciled-in” recommended allocation, based on

*767

its personal experience with the litigation, the record, and the Court’s guidelines. To arrive at this recommendation, the FAC developed its own objective criteria by-breaking down each common benefit fee applicant’s contribution to the work categories of Key Leadership Roles, Trials, Settlement, Law & Briefing, Settlement Implementation/PosL-Settlement Matters, Discovery/Science, Committee Leadership and Participation, Funding, and Case Management. The FAC assigned a maximum point value to each category based on its relative importance in the litigation and then assigned individual point values to attorneys for their work done in that category. These amounts were then totaled and adjusted pursuant to the

Johnson

factors for a “rough cut” on a preliminary evaluation. This method allowed the FAC to break down the applicants’ relative contributions in different areas of the litigation and to compare, for example, trial work to trial work and discovery work to discovery work.

PTO 6D required the FAC to “provide each participating attorney notice of the Committee’s Recommendation as it pertains to the participating attorney.” Pursuant to PTO 6D, each applicant had fourteen days to submit to the FAC a written objection to that preliminary recommendation before the FAC submitted its final proposed recommendation to the Court. The purpose of this notice and period for response was to elicit prompt feedback so that the FAC could consider and, if appropriate, revise its tentative allocation on the basis of that input before providing the final proposed recommendation to the Court. Some attorneys expressed misplaced concern that objecting or failing to object would have some preclusive effect on the amount that they might eventually receive. The Court explained on its website that “No attorney will be prohibited in any way from objecting to the Committee’s final recommendation on the basis of their response to notice of the preliminary allocation.”

The FAC received objections, considered them, and in many cases adjusted its penciled-in recommended allocation. Thus, the preliminary notice mandated by PTO 6D served its purpose. On January 20, 2011 the Court received the FAC’s final proposed recommendation and posted it on its website for both the attorneys and the public at large to see. The Court ordered any objections to any recommended allocation to be filed by February 4, 2011.

Eighteen firms or attorneys objected.

11

Because of the number of objectors, it was necessary to designate representatives for the Objectors and representatives of the FAC to coordinate discovery and briefing relevant to all fee objectors and applicants. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Objectors and the FAC to meet and confer separately and to select attorneys to serve as Lead and Liaison Counsel for each group. The Objectors and the FAC each unanimously selected Lead and Liaison Counsel who were appointed to those roles.

3) Proceedings Befóte the Special Master

As presaged by the October 19, 2010 Order and Reasons, given the nature and number of objections the Court appointed Patrick Juneau as Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 and assigned him a number of duties. (Rec. Doc. 62606). Special Master Juneau was authorized to “conduct interviews, review

*768

any relevant documents, oversee discovery, and then ... submit a written recommendation of the amount every common benefit fee applicant should receive.”

Id.

at 2-3. This was to serve as a second review conducted by someone who had no financial interest in the litigation.

The Special Master received extensive briefing from the Objectors and the FAC regarding the scope of discovery into the substantive basis of the FAC’s recommended allocation as well as their methodology. On March 31, 2011, Special Master Juneau ruled on those motions and issued a Report and Scheduling Order. (Rec. Doc. 62735). The Special Master noted the extensive discovery that had been made available to the Objectors, including extensive meetings with the Court-appointed CPA and access to submitted time records. The Special Master denied some additional discovery, permitted the Objectors to depose a representative of the FAC, and scheduled a week-long evidentiary hearing at which all Objectors would be entitled to testify before the Special Master and to question a FAC representative as well as the Court-appointed CPA. Objectors’ Counsel appealed the Special Master’s Report and Scheduling Order, and the Court affirmed the Special Master in all respects. (Rec. Doc. 62883).

On May 6, 2011, pursuant to the Special Master’s Report and Scheduling Order, Objectors took a nine-hour deposition of a representative of the FAC. Beginning on May 9, 2011, and continuing every day of that week through May 13, 2011, the Special Master presided over an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the Objectors testified and submitted evidence regarding their contribution to the common benefit in support of their requested allocation. The Objectors also had the opportunity to examine the Court-appointed CPA and a representative of the FAC. The FAC had the opportunity to cross-examine the Objectors. By the conclusion of the week-long hearing, a number of the Objectors had reached an accord with the FAC regarding the amount the FAC would recommend that they receive. Only four Objectors remained, and the Special Master concluded that no additional testimony or document production was necessary. The Special Master also provided all participants an opportunity to file post-hearing briefs, and he received briefs from the remaining Objectors, Lead Counsel for the Objectors, and the FAC.

On June 27, 2011, the Special Master filed his Report and Recommendations. (Rec. Doc. 63093). This Report and Recommendations considered the entire record, including the discovery and evidentiary hearing supervised by the Special Master, addressed the Objectors’ positions, and made a comprehensive recommendation as to how the common benefit fund should be divided between all applicants, Objectors and Non-objectors. The Court posted that Report and Recommendations on its website for all to see and invited a final round of comments and objections. The Court received objections from the four remaining Objectors, and a response from the FAC. The Court denied those objections in a previous Order and Reasons. (Rec. Doc. 63188).

To summarize, all attorneys seeking an award of common benefit fees have now had the opportunity to: submit time records to the Court-appointed CPA documenting their common benefit work; provide a written affidavit and supporting materials to the Court-appointed Fee Allocation committee articulating their common benefit contribution; testify on the record before the FAC regarding their common benefit contribution; comment on the FAC’s preliminary recommendation before it was presented to the Court; object to the FAC’s recommended allocation after it was presented to the Court; testi

*769

fy and produce evidence at a hearing before Special Master Juneau; depose and cross-examine a member of the FAC regarding that Committee’s reasoning and methodology in reaching its proposed recommendation; file a post-hearing brief arguing in support of their requested allocation; and respond to the Special Master’s report and recommendation. These proceedings were all recorded and the results posted on the Court’s web site. They have been transparent, have provided all common benefit fee applicants fair notice and ample opportunity to be heard, and have created a sufficient factual record for the Court to make an informed allocation of the common benefit fund. The Court has also kept the courts in Texas, New Jersey, and California advised of these developments and has periodically conferred with the Judges of these courts.

The Court now has before it the FAC’s original and amended recommended allocation of the common benefit fees, the Special Master’s independent Report and Recommendation, and the ample evidence and testimony produced throughout these proceedings. It is prepared to rule and allocate the common benefit fund. But before turning to the allocation it is appropriate to review the legal and factual authority of the Court to award common benefit fees and to discuss the method used in making this allocation.

11. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Court’s Authority and Jurisdiction to Award Common Benefit Fees

First, it is worth reiterating the source of the Court’s authority to award and allocate the common benefit fund. Since the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has recognized an equitable exception to the general rule that a prevailing litigant is not entitled to collect attorneys’ fees from the loser. This exception has become known as the common fund or common benefit doctrine and permits the creation of a common fund in order to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees for legal services beneficial to persons other than a particular client, thus spreading the cost of the litigation to all beneficiaries.

See In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.,

594 F.3d 113 , 128 (2d Cir.2010) (Kaplan, J., concurring). This equitable common fund doctrine was originally, and perhaps still is, most commonly applied to awards of attorneys’ fees in class actions.

E.g.,

4 Alba Conte

&

Herbert B. Newberg,

Newberg on Class Actions

§ 13:76 (4th ed. 2002) (discussing common fund doctrine in context of class actions); Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h).

But the common fund doctrine is not limited solely to class actions.

See Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank,

307 U.S. 161 , 59 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939) (employing common benefit doctrine to award fees and costs to litigant whose success benefitted unrelated parties by establishing their legal rights); Alan Hirsh & Diane Sheeley, Fed. Judicial Ctr.,

Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing Fee Litigation

51 (2nd ed. 2005) (“Although many

common

fund cases are class actions ... the common fund doctrine is not limited to class actions.”); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 14.121 (2004). As class actions morph into multidistrict litigation, as is the modern trend, the common benefit concept has migrated into the latter area. The theoretical bases for the application of this concept to MDLs are the same as for class actions, namely equity and her blood brother, quantum meruit. However, there is a difference. In class actions the beneficiary of the common benefit is the claimant; in MDLs the beneficiary is the primary attorney.

12

*770

MDL courts have consistently cited the common fund doctrine as a basis for assessing common benefit fees in favor of attorneys who render legal services beneficial to all MDL plaintiffs.

E.g., In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig.,

MDL No. 06-1811, 2010 WL 716190 , at

*4

(E.D.Mo. Feb. 24, 2010) (relying on common fund doctrine as an alternate basis to inherent managerial authority and concluding that “[b]oth sources of authority provide the same result”);

In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig.,

MDL No. 05-1708, 2008 WL 682174 , at *4 (D.Minn. Mar. 7, 2008);

accord In re Zyprexa,

594 F.3d at 128-30 (Kaplan, J., concurring).

In addition to judicial precedent the Court also finds authority to assess common benefit attorneys’ fees in its inherent managerial authority, particularly in light of the complex nature of this MDL. The Fifth Circuit has long recognized that a court’s power to consolidate and manage litigation necessarily implies a corollary authority to appoint lead or liaison counsel and to compensate them for their work.

See In re Air Crash Disaster at Fl. Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972,

549 F.2d 1006 (1977)

(“Everglades

”). In

Ever glades,

the JPML transferred all federal cases arising out of a passenger plane crash near Miami to the Southern District of Florida.

Id.

at 1008 . The transferee court appointed a Plaintiffs’ Committee to coordinate discovery and pretrial matters, and then to conduct bellwether trials.

Id.

The court compensated the Committee through an assessment on the contingent fees of attorneys who represented MDL plaintiffs but were not on the Committee.

Id.

The non-Committee attorneys appealed and the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s authority to make that assessment. The Fifth Circuit explained that a district court has inherent authority “to bring management power to bear upon massive and complex litigation to prevent it from monopolizing the services of the court to the exclusion of other litigants.”

Id.

at 1012 . Therefore, an MDL court “may designate one attorney or set of attorneys to handle pre-trial activity on aspects of the case where the interests of all co-parties coincide.”

Id.

at 1014 . Naturally, this authority would be “illusory if it is dependent upon lead counsel’s performing the duties desired of them for no additional compensation.”

Id.

at 1016 . Assessment of those fees against other retained lawyers who benefitted from the work done was permissible and appropriate.

See id.

at 1019-20 .

13

Other courts have applied this inherent authority to compensate common benefit counsel in complex litigation.

E.g., In re Diet Drugs,

582 F.3d 524, 546-47 (3rd Cir.2009);

In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig.,

2010 WL 716190 , at *4 (“An MDL court’s authority to establish a trust and to order compensations to compensate leadership counsel derives from its ‘managerial’ power over the consolidated litigation, and, to some extent, from its inherent equitable power.”);

In re Guidant,

2008 WL 682174 , at *5;

In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.,

467 F.Supp.2d 256, 265-66 (E.D.N.Y.2006);

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,

292 F.Supp.2d 644, 653-56 (E.D.Pa.2003);

see also

Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 22.62 (2004); Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 30 Reporter’s Note b (Tentative Draft No. 3, 1994) (“In contrast to the standard view of

*771

class-action fees, which explains them as restitutionary, the leading accounts of fees to court-appointed counsel in consolidated litigation properly emphasize factors independent of restitution to justify the imposition of a liability by court order.”) (citing

Everglades).

In addition to equity, quantum meruit, and inherent managerial authority, the Court derives express authority in this case from the very terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties and consented to by their primary attorneys. Section 9.2 of the Settlement Agreement governs common benefit fees and expressly authorizes this Court to determine common benefit attorneys’ fees, as explained in greater detail above. Settlement Agreement § 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 provide:

9.2.1. To ensure that ... common benefit attorneys ... are fairly compensated but that their fees are in conformance with reasonable rates, an assessment of common benefit attorneys’ fees will be imposed at no more than 8% of the gross amount recovered for every client that registers under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Any sum paid as a common benefit fee shall be deducted from the total amount of counsel fees payable under individual plaintiffs’ counsel’s retainer agreement. The maximum 8% attorneys’ fee assessment shall supersede the assessment provided to MDL common benefit attorneys pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 19.

9.2.3 [T]he attorneys’ fees and common benefit expenses deducted by the Claims Administrator shall be deposited into an interest bearing escrow account (the “Settlement Fee and Cost Account”). The Settlement Fee and Cost Account shall be maintained at a financial institution. Funds within the Settlement Fee and Cost Account shall be administered by the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon and all awards therefrom will be subject to approval, upon due consideration by him in consultation with the Honorable Victoria G. Chaney, the Honorable Carol E. Higbee, and the Honorable Randy Wilson, and in accordance with established Fifth Circuit precedent. ...

Thus, all parties to the MSA expressly agreed to the creation of a common benefit fund to be administered by the Court.

B. Some Final Thoughts About the Process for Allocating Common Benefit Fees

Before determining the proper fee allocation in this case some general comments are in order.

First, the Court capped the total amount of attorneys’ fees for primary counsel at 32% of the $4.85 billion settlement which means that the primary counsel’s attorneys’ fees in this case are one billion, five hundred and fifty-two million dollars ($1,552,000,000). Out of that 32%, the Court has created a fund for common benefit counsel of 6.5% of the total settlement amount, or Three Hundred and Fifteen Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($315,250,000.00). This amount has been escrowed and the remainder has been paid to primary counsel. Thus, primary counsel for individual claimants have already received over one billion dollars pursuant to contingent fee agreements. Many if not all of the common benefit fee applicants are also primary counsel in at least some if not many cases and thus have already received substantial compensation pursuant to contingent fee agreements

*772

with their own clients. For this reason, it is disconcerting and disappointing to receive such vexatious, vitriolic, and acerbic briefs from some of the attorneys who seek common benefit fees.

Second, there has been much discussion regarding the process by which this Court, or any court, should allocate attorneys’ fees. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion in

In re High Sulfur

is instructive in this respect. In

High Sulfur,

the Fifth Circuit reviewed an allocation of attorneys’ fees in a class action case. The takeaway from

High Sulfur

is that in allocating a fund of attorneys’ fees, the Court must conform to “traditional judicial standards of transparency, impartiality, procedural fairness, and ultimate judicial oversight.” 517 F.3d at 234. That requires creating a sufficient record, making sufficient factual findings, considering the time worked and the

Johnson

factors, providing an opportunity to be heard to all the applicants, and exercising independent judgment in allocating those fees rather than simply rubber-stamping a committee recommendation. The Court has been guided by these principles throughout this process.

Third, there has been much ink spilt in this case discussing the methodology by which common benefit attorneys’ fees should be calculated. As explained in the Court’s Order and Reasons of October 19, 2010, there is a growing trend in this country to use a blended approach to determine the appropriate common benefit fee in an MDL. Such an approach seeks an appropriate percentage through an analysis of similar cases, then modifies it upward or downward by a review of the

Johnson

factors and tests it through a lodestar cross-check. In this case, the Court applied this blended approach.

See

760 F.Supp.2d at 652-62 . The lodestar process played an important part in the analysis but the lodestar cross-check did not generate the common benefit award in the first instance; rather, it verified that the percentage fixed by the Court did not represent a windfall relative to the total hours worked.

Thus, on these facts, rigid application of a lodestar calculation to allocate fees is not the Court’s starting point. As the Court has explained before:

In a case of this kind, not all types of work are created equal. Hours spent taking depositions, participating in hearings, or trials, actively participating in developing the appropriate litigation strategies and tactics (through moot court presentations or similar practices), drafting briefs, actively participating in Court conferences, arguing motions, negotiating with opposing counsel to reach a settlement, and actively managing and organizing the administrative aspects of the case are some of the more significant types of work that a case of this sort requires and deserves the most recognition. This, of course, is not the only type of work that such a case requires. Documents must be reviewed, categorized, and analyzed; e-mails must be read and responded to; claimants must be kept advised; meetings must be attended and in general the litigation must be monitored. This work, while necessary and often time consuming does not deserve equal treatment when allotting fees.

Murphy Oil,

582 F.Supp.2d at 810-11. In short, there is a hierarchy of value for work that tends to have a greater impact on the litigation and generates more “common benefit.” Such work deserves greater compensation. This is not a unique concept. It is a common practice in the legal profession to bill certain work at a higher rate than other work. Mechanically calculating hours and allocating fees solely on that basis would incentivize padded hours and diminish the work that truly moved

*773

the litigation toward its conclusion.

See id.

A lodestar calculation is important in comparing the relative contribution of attorneys doing the same kind of work, and it is also an important check to ensure that the spread between compensation for attorneys doing more or less significant work is not grossly unfair, but it is not the end-all of allocating fees in an MDL case such as this.

It is not inconsistent, as some have suggested, to rely on lodestar as a cross-check but to reject it as the sole basis for allocation. The reason it is not inconsistent is because the objective is different. The objective of the lodestar method is to cross-check the accuracy of the percentage method to determine whether the totality of the hours spent and an amount assigned to it under the lodestar has a realistic relevance to the amount assigned as a common benefit fee. But when the focus is on the allocation of that fee the lodestar analysis is incomplete because it is necessary to drill down on the hours and prioritize them, consistent with the facts of each MDL. For those MDLs that are resolved without trials the priority may be different from this case. In this case there were nearly twenty trials: six in the MDL and the remainder in the various state courts. Those trials and the preparation involved therein played a substantial role in creating an environment in which settlement could be spawned, birthed, and nurtured. Therefore, in this case the attorneys who took up the cudgels and participated in those trials deserve an appropriate recognition for their efforts. To simply total the hours spent, apply an appropriate lodestar factor, and allocate the fee on that basis alone would not be appropriate in this case.

However, to uniformly recognize each trial counsel with the same common benefit fee would also be improper. The goal or objective of the proper allocation of the common benefit fee is not to pay counsel for his or her work at the trial stage of a particular case. That is the purpose of the contingent fee in that case. The purpose of the common benefit fee is to materially recognize counsel for the work which inured to the common benefit of the litigation as a whole. Thus, in allocating common benefit fees to trial counsel it is important to determine when the trial occurred, whether the work was shared with other counsel, whether the work was helpful in other eases or just in that one case. In this latter event, it does not mean that such counsel would not be entitled to some common benefit fee because there is a salutary rippling effect which a win or “hard fought case” has on other cases. But it also does not mean that such counsel may be entitled to the same common benefit fee as a colleague whose work was shared with other counsel and had a meaningful effect on subsequent trials.

Fourth, some comments on the role of a fee-allocating committee are also warranted. It is beyond dispute that a court may “appoint a committee of plaintiffs’ counsel to recommend how to divide up an aggregate fee award.”

In re High Sulfur I,

517 F.3d at 227. The Court has previously used this mechanism with the hope that the committee could “achieve a unanimous agreement as to how the Common Benefit Fund should be allocated among counsel.”

Murphy Oil,

582 F.Supp.2d at 801. If all counsel had an opportunity for informed arms-length discussion with an allocating committee, and the committee could recommend an allocation of a fixed pot of common benefit fees acceptable to all interested counsel, the Court would give weight to that mutual agreement. Unfortunately, unanimity is hard to achieve. Hence, the Court maintains the “responsibility to closely scrutinize the attorneys’ fee allocation, especially when the attorneys recommending the allocation

*774

have a financial interest in the resulting awards.”

High Sulfu/r I,

517 F.3d at 227. To deal with this potential conflict a Special Master was appointed who had no financial interest in the awards. The Special Master was charged with conducting discovery and making his own recommendation.

In this case, the lengthy fee allocation procedure has provided an opportunity for common benefit fee applicants to review the FAC’s recommendation and the Special Master’s recommendation as they pertain to all applicants, and to comment on those recommendations. In some circumstances this dialogue between the FAC, the Special Master, and the applicants has resolved objections and produced consensus. Some might criticize any negotiation between the FAC or the Special Master and the applicants as “horse-trading” or “side deals.” The Court interprets this ongoing development of the FAC’s and the Special Master’s recommended allocations as an indication that the allocation process was working properly. The effectiveness of this process in this case is supported by the fact that only 4 out of the 108 common benefit fee applicants continue to maintain their objections.

Fifth, there is some criticism expressed that allocation of common benefit fees contains an element of subjectivity. It is this Court’s view that some subjectivity is unavoidable in allotting common benefit fees. In the fictional and perfect “best of all possible worlds” of Voltaire’s

Candide,

an appropriate allocation might be achieved by applying purely objective criteria such as the billing-rate-times-hours method described above. But in the real and imperfect world of litigation it is an accepted fact that not all work hours are entitled to the same compensation rate. The nature of the work, the skill and experience of the party doing the work, and the result achieved all factor into the appropriate allocation. How these factors are weighed injects an unavoidable amount of subjectivity in the analysis. The best that can be done to assure the validity of the analysis is to base the subjectivity quotient on sufficient facts and experience, and to invite input from those affected. This Court has attempted to do this through a tedious and long drawn-out process.

Finally, after reviewing the documents and transcripts compiled by the Fee Allocation Committee, the detailed report and recommendations of the Special Master, as well as the exhibits cited therein, consulting with the Honorable Victoria G. Chaney, the Honorable Carol E. Higbee, and the Honorable Randy Wilson, and drawing upon this Court’s experience in this case accumulated during the course of over five years in which there were six bellwether trials, hundreds of meetings, dozens of hearings, and nearly 1000 Court rulings, and consistent with applicable law, this Court makes the following allocation of common benefit fees.

C. Allocation of Fees

The Court will address each common benefit applicant in alphabetical order, setting out the amount of the allocation and the factual basis underlying the Court’s conclusion.

14

1) Alley, Clark, Greiwe & Fulmer

Alley, Clark, Greiwe & Fulmer were co-counsel in

Kozic v. Merck & Co.,

a bellwether case which was tried in state court in Tampa, Florida. The case was filed prior to Vioxx being withdrawn from the market and was the last case tried

*775

before the announcement of the settlement program. Alley, Clark, Greiwe & Fulmer submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 1,611.25 hours, of which 1,204.75 were partner hours. Alley, Clark, Greiwe & Fulmer incurred $197,945.81 in common benefit costs and enrolled more than 100 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $365,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $365,000.

Based on the firm’s common benefit contribution and considering the nature of the work done by Alley, Clark, Greiwe

&

Fulmer, including its trial work in the

Kozic

case, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $500,000.

2) Alvarez Law Firm

The Alvarez Law Firm submitted 30 common benefit hours. All time was devoted to document review. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee. The Alvarez Law Firm submitted $2,763.89 in common benefit costs. The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Alvarez Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

3) Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, P.C.

Sol Weiss served as Co-Lead Counsel in the New Jersey Coordinated Litigation. Anapol Schwartz was involved in the prosecution of the Yioxx litigation well in advance of the drug’s withdrawal from the market and the firm’s involvement continued until the time of the settlement.

Anapol Schwartz submitted 8,430 common benefit hours, 1,777.25 key lawyer horn’s and 4,034.25 partner hours. Anapol Schwartz incurred $579,749.50 in common benefit expenses. Anapol Schwartz enrolled over 700 claimants in the settlement program. The FAC recommended an award of $3,400,000. The firm objected to that recommended amount and participated in the Special Master’s hearing. The Special Master recommended an award of $4,000,000. The firm has indicated it does not object to a recommendation of that amount.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Anapol Schwartz, including their leadership role in the New Jersey Coordinated Litigation, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $4,000,000.

4)Anastopoulo & Clore, LLC

Anastopoulo & Clore, LLC was lead counsel in

Reck v. Merck & Co.,

which was set for trial in the Texas Consolidated Litigation. Consequently, members of the firm participated in extensive case-specific discovery and motion practice. Lawyers for Anastopoulo

&

Clore also assisted in the development of experts and participated in document review. Anastopoulo & Clore submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 607.75, of which 255.75 are partner hours. More than half of these hours were expended for case assessment, development and administration; 170 hours were expended on discovery. Anastopoulo & Clore incurred $80,373.47 in common benefit costs. The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

*776

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Anastopoulo

&

Clore, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.00.

5) Andrews & Thornton

Anne Andrews and John Thornton were the primary point of contact for Dr. Douglas Zipes, an expert cardiologist who participated in several bellwether trials, including

Barnett v. Merck & Co.

Ms. Andrews and Mr. Thornton worked extensively with Dr. Zipes on the development of his Rule 26 report and assisted in Dr. Zipes’ preparation for deposition and trial testimony. Ms. Andrews and Mr. Thornton worked with Jeffrey Popma, an expert cardiologist who testified in the

Barnett

trial, as well as Dr. Paul Ridker, Dr. Mark Haigney, and Dr. Michael Shlipak, among others. In addition, they pioneered and participated in an extensive vetting process for cardiologists throughout the country for purposes of identifying experts. Andrews & Thornton submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 2,005 hours, of which 1,908.25 were partner hours. Andrews & Thornton incurred $388,500.11 in common benefit costs. The FAC recommended an award of $600,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $600,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Andrews

&

Thornton, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $600,000.

6) Ashcraft & Gerel

Chris Tisi, a senior partner in the law firm of Ashcraft & Gerel, served as a member of the PSC, the Science Committee, the Trial Selection Committee, the Privilege Log Committee, the Trial Package Committee, the Law and Briefing Committee, and as Vice-Chair of the Discovery Committee. In addition, Michelle Parfitt, also a senior partner at Ashcraft

&

Gerel, served as Co-Chair of the Science Committee and a member of the Discovery Committee. Ashcraft & Gerel began working on the Vioxx litigation in 2004. Mr. Tisi worked almost exclusively on Vioxx-related matters for over three years.

As a Vice-Chair of the Discovery Committee, Mr. Tisi directed the daily activities of this committee, negotiated discovery disputes with Merck and third parties, managed the depositories, and coordinated the discovery with various state courts. Mr. Tisi was the primary architect of the third-party discovery strategy that was employed by the PSC. This effort secured independent fact witness’ testimony that was central in state and federal court trials.

Mr. Tisi personally prepared and took the depositions of key third party witnesses as well as corporate witnesses. Mr. Tisi developed the Defense Profile Form, an innovation used both in the MDL and New Jersey Consolidated Litigation. Mr. Tisi authored, co-authored or argued at least ten significant MDL motions and an additional number of motions in limine in New Jersey state court trials. Mr. Tisi also made significant contributions to the development of the MDL Trial Package.

Mr. Tisi and other members of the Ash-craft & Gerel firm provided significant support for bellwether trials in the MDL and in New Jersey. Ashcraft & Gerel contributed 6,791.5 common benefit hours, including 3,929 key lawyer hours. In addition, Ashcraft

&

Gerel expended $194,437.40 in the common benefit effort. The firm paid $355,000.00 in PSC assessments. The FAC recommended an award of $9,000,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $9,000,000.

*777

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Ashcraft

&

Gerel Law, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $9,000,000.

7) Audet & Partners, LLP

Audet & Partners made material contributions to efforts in the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation. The firm was co-counsel in

LoPresti v. Merck & Co., Tena v. Merck & Co.,

and

Allen v. Merck & Co.,

all of which were set for expedited discovery and potential trial in New Jersey. In those cases, Suzanne Scovern, along with co-counsel Rob Dassow, reviewed thousands of documents associated with the custodial and personnel files of sales representatives, took the depositions of sales representatives and fact witnesses, participated in numerous discovery hearings, and retained and prepared expert witnesses. Along with co-counsel, they were able to successfully compel the production of sales representatives’ monthly credit card statements through which they discovered evidence of Merck’s practice of “gifting” Yioxx prescribers. In conjunction with preparation of the

Tena

case, members of the firm were instrumental in bringing to light deficiencies in the process by which Merck identified and produced documents in relation to Merck Profile Forms and specifically, Merck’s inconsistencies in disclosing physician compensation. In relation to the

Allen

case, Audet & Partners, along with co-counsel Hovde, Dassow & Deets, successfully sought an order from the court to take the deposition of a regional business manager, Richard Brown. In relation to that deposition, they reviewed over 75,000 documents, participated in numerous teleconferences regarding production, and participated in a hearing before Judge Higbee. The matter was under submission at the time the settlement program was announced.

In addition, the firm was lead counsel in three cases set for expedited discovery in the California Consolidated Litigation. One of those cases,

Andreasen v. Merck & Co.,

was slated to be set for trial. Though

Andreasen

was not ultimately set for trial, the case was the subject of extensive pretrial discovery and motion practice.

William Audet was instrumental in organizing and paying the initial costs for a number of plaintiffs-only trial strategy seminars presented by Rodney Jew of CDS. These seminars were attended by counsel in New Jersey trial cases.

Audet & Partners submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 7,666 hours, of which 1,736.50 were partner hours. Audet

&

Partners incurred $243,687.26 in common benefit expenses. The FAC recommended an award of $1,415,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $1,415,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Audet & Partners, including their special contributions in discovering significant material helpful to the litigation, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $1,415,000.

8) Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholz, LLC

Justin Witkin was a member of the State Liaison Committee. Members of the firm were involved in document review at depositories in New York and Louisiana. Members of the firm also participated in the taking of depositions and contributed to the development of discovery regarding sales representatives. In addition, members of the firm assisted with the drafting of motions in limine, jury questionnaires and deposition designations for the Irvin bellwether trial. Aylstock

*778

Witkin submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 841.5 hours, of which 355.25 were partner hours.

The FAC recommended an award of $225,000. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $225,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholz, LLC, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $225,000.

9) Balkin & Eisbrouch

Balkin & Eisbrouch submitted 25.75 common benefit hours, all of which were partner hours and devoted to case assessment, development, and administration. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee. Balkin

&

Eisbrouch submitted $2,000 in common benefit costs. The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Balkin & Eisbrouch, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

10) Brian K. Balser

Brian Balser submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 592.25, all of which were devoted to discovery, mainly document review and work pertaining to Merck’s privilege log. Mr. Balser was a member of the Discovery Committee and the Privilege Log Committee. Mr. Balser submitted $12,357.19 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $130,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $130,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Brian Balser Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $130,000.

11) Barnow & Associates

Barnow & Associates submitted 67.25 common benefit hours, of which 22.75 appear to be partner hours. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee. The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Barnow & Associates, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

12) Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, LLP

Dawn Barrios was Chair of the MDL State Liaison Committee and also served on the Discovery Committee, Sales and Marketing Committee, the Law and Briefing Committee, the Science Committee, the Stroke Subcommittee, the Third Party Payor Committee, and the Trial Selection Committee. As Chair of the State Liaison Committee, Ms. Barrios played a critical role in communicating with state court lawyers around the country, issuing newsletters, and addressing questions from lawyers. She made monthly reports

*779

to this Court. At the Court’s request, she oversaw a project identifying all cases in the MDL with pending remand motions and gathering those motions for consideration by the Court. This project began in July 2005 and remains ongoing at this time. Ms. Barrios also serves as liaison to Attorneys General who have actions pending in the MDL and has a primary role in the coordination of common discovery on AG cases. This assignment is ongoing.

Ms. Barrios served as local counsel in

Mason v. Merck & Co.,

an MDL bellwether trial. She assisted with preparation of motions in limine and jury selection, prepared the plaintiff and his wife for trial, and served as a liaison between the trial team and the PSC. In support of the

Irvin

bellwether trial, Ms. Barrios assisted in creating a database of motions, replies and rulings and of jury charges and jury interrogatories used in prior cases. Ms. Barrios also assisted in the preparation of the

Diaz

case, assisting with the plaintiffs deposition.

Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 3,439.25 hours, of which 2,448.25 were partner hours. Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix incurred $20,403.98 in common benefit expenses.

The FAC recommended an award of $1,700,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $1,700,000.

Considering the above and factoring in the experience of this Court during the course of the proceedings, and based upon the common benefit contributions and the leadership role and considering the nature of the work done by Barrios, Kingsdorf

&

Casteix, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $1,800,000.

13) Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorney

Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorney submitted 30 common benefit, all of which were partner hours and were devoted to the preparation of Dr. Thomas Baldwin, an expert cardiologist in

Irvin v. Merck & Co.,

the first MDL bellwether trial. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee. Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorney incurred common benefit expenses in the amount of $486.95 and enrolled more than 200 cases in the settlement program. The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorney, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

14) Beasley, Allen, Methvin, Portis & Miles

Andy Birchfield served as Co-Lead Counsel in the MDL. Mr. Birchfield served as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, the PSC, the NPC, the Gates Committee, the FAC, and the Vioxx Settlement Liaison Group, as well as a member of most MDL subcommittees. Along with Russ Herman and Chris Seeger, Birchfield provided the leadership necessary to bring this complex litigation to a successful and efficient resolution. Andy Birchfield’s commitment to the litigation from beginning to end is unmatched; he played crucial roles in MDL leadership, bellwether trials, settlement negotiations, and administration.

*780

Beasley Alen has been at the forefront of the Vioxx litigation since its inception in 2001. Beasley Alen filed the second case in the country in September 2001, three years before Vioxx was withdrawn from the market. Andy Birchfield’s commitment to the Vioxx litigation precluded his pursuit of employment in other litigations. Mr. Birchfield forewent other opportunities to commit to the Vioxx litigation.

Under Mr. Birchfield’s leadership, Beasley Alen spearheaded, along with Seeger Weiss, Lanier Law Firm, and Shelly Sanford’s firm, the initial discovery in the Vioxx litigation. Beasley Alen reviewed tens of thousands of Merck documents before Vioxx was withdrawn from the market. David Miceli, a former Beasley Alen shareholder, took the early and foundational depositions of key Merck corporate witnesses such as Dr. Edward Scolnick, Dr. Aise Reicin, Dr. Briggs Morrison, Dr. Barry Gertz, and Mr. Adam Schechter, among others. Portions of these depositions were ultimately used during MDL bellwether trials and others were valuable building blocks for later depositions. Beasley Alen pioneered scientific theories which have ultimately been validated in trials and by the Vioxx resolution program. More than two years before Vioxx was withdrawn from the market, Mr. Birchfield was speaking at national seminars and alerting lawyers to the dangers of Vioxx. When Vioxx was pulled from the market, instead of taking a proprietary approach, Beasley Alen shared with lawyers throughout the country the theories of the case, discovery, contacts, and other resources it had developed. Beasley Alen has worked diligently to cultivate a spirit of cooperation among lawyers in state courts and the MDL. Teamwork between state and federal proceedings has been a hallmark of the litigation and essential to its overall success.

In addition to Mr. Birchfield’s contributions to the MDL, Frank Woodson, a Beasley Alen shareholder, served on the MDL Sales and Marketing Committee. Paul Sizemore, a former Beasley Alen shareholder, played a vital role on the Science Committee and worked with numerous experts used in the MDL as well as in other coordinated litigations, such as Dr. Benedict Luchessi, Dr. Colin Bloor, Dr. Lemuel Moye, Dr. Donna Arnett, Dr. Connie Pechman, and Dr. Ira Gelb. During his tenure at Beasley Alen, Mr. Sizemore also served as co-counsel in

Irvin v. Merck & Co.

and

Grossberg v. Merck & Co.

Ms. Leigh O’Dell, a Beasley Alen shareholder, served as a member of the MDL Law and Briefing Committee and the Trial Package Committee. Ms. O’Dell contributed more than 8,500 hours of time to the MDL. Beasley Alen took a lead role in the preparation and presentation of the Trial Package. Ms. O’Dell served as co-counsel in

Dedrick v. Merck & Co.

and assisted in the trials of four other bellwether cases.

Andy Birchfield served as lead or co-lead counsel in five of the seventeen Vioxx trials including four of the six MDL bellwether trials. Of the seventeen trials that took place during the litigation, Beasley Alen lawyers served as lead counsel, co-counsel, or support counsel in seven:

Irvin

(MDL),

Irvin II

(MDL),

Barnett

(MDL),

Grossberg (CA), Dedrick

(MDL),

Albright

(AL) and

Schwaller (IL). Irvin v. Merck,

a Beasley Alen case, was pending in Florida state court when the case was selected by the parties and the Court to be the first case to be tried in the MDL. Beasley Alen prepared the first MDL trial under a tight time-frame of three months. The work product developed in preparation for the

Irvin

case became the foundation for preparation in other MDL trials and some state court cases. Due to Hurricane Katrina, the first

Irvin

trial took place in

*781

Houston, Texas. The case was tried in November, 2005 for approximately two weeks and resulted in a hung jury. The Court ordered a second trial eight weeks later in New Orleans during February, 2006. The second trial lasted more than two weeks and resulted in a defense verdict. The Court granted Beasley Allen’s motion for a new trial after finding that Merck’s expert cardiologist misrepresented his qualifications during

Irvin II.

Mr. Birchfield served as co-counsel in

Barnett v. Merck,

the third MDL bellwether trial. Beasley Allen devoted extensive time and energy to the preparation and the trial of the case. After a nearly three-week trial during July and August, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Barnett in the amount of $51,000,000. Beasley Allen invested more than 2,500 hours in the preparation and trial of the Barnett case. Beasley Allen did not have a fee interest in the

Barnett

case, but made the contributions outlined above purely for the advancement of the overall litigation.

During June, July and August, 2005, while Mr. Sizemore was a shareholder at Beasley Allen, he served as co-counsel in

Grossberg v. Merck,

a Girardi Keese case which was tried in the California Consolidated Litigation. Mr. Sizemore spent nearly eight weeks in California preparing and participating in this trial. Beasley Allen did not have a fee interest in the

Grossberg

case, but made the contributions outlined above purely for the advancement of the overall litigation.

Another Beasley Allen case,

Dedrick v. Merck & Co.,

was the last MDL bellwether trial. The

Dedrick

case was a defense-selected trial case. Mr. Dedrick’s medical history included numerous risk factors for heart attack. Beasley Allen did not withdraw the case from the trial process despite the challenging fact pattern. The case resulted in a defense verdict. Beasley Allen invested approximately 5,500 hours and over $1 million in the preparation and trial of the

Dedrick

case.

While the Dedrick trial was underway in the MDL,

Albright v. Merck & Co.

was tried in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. Ben Locklar, a Beasley Allen shareholder, assisted in the preparation and the trial of the

Albright

case. Beasley Allen did not have a fee interest in the

Albright

case, but rather assisted with the case purely for the advancement of the overall litigation.

Lastly, Andy Birchfield served as co-counsel with Mikal Watts in the trial of

Schwaller v. Merck & Co.

in Madison County, Illinois. Mr. Birchfield worked with the Watts Firm to develop trial strategy, and directed and cross-examined key plaintiff and defense witnesses. Ms. O’Dell prepared and argued all deposition designations and oversaw the admission of all evidence at trial. Beasley Allen invested approximately 2,250 hours in the preparation and trial of the

Schwaller

case. Beasley Allen did not have a fee interest in the

Schwaller

case, but made the contributions outlined above purely for the advancement of the litigation.

On December 14, 2006, the day after the jury returned a verdict in

Dedrick v. Merck,

negotiations between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Merck began and continued until a resolution was reached during the early morning hours of November 9, 2007. As members of the NPC, Mr. Birchfield and Ed Blizzard took the lead in negotiating the actual terms of the Settlement Agreement and researching and testing the effect of key provisions such as various risk factors and degrees of injury to ensure a fair settlement and appropriate compensation for all participants, as evidenced by the 99% voluntary participation rate of all eligible claimants. Mr. Birch-field, along with Ms. O’Dell and Roger

*782

Smith, a Beasley Allen shareholder, spent hundreds of hours developing a random sample upon which settlement terms might be tested. The random sample involved the claims of approximately 500 claimants. Beasley Allen retained and worked with a biostatistician to verify the sample and extrapolate test results across the 50,000-person Vioxx claimant population. These predictions were important to the negotiations. Following the signing of the settlement agreement, Mr. Birchfield also played a significant role in educating other plaintiffs’ counsel about the settlement agreement.

Mr. Birchfield also contributed to the efficient operation of the Vioxx Resolution Program. He maintained consistent and frequent contact with Merck and BrownGreer, the Vioxx Claims Administrator. Moreover, he served on the Gates Committee, and along with Ms. O’Dell, reviewed thousands of Vioxx claims before the Gates Committee.

In short, Beasley Allen, under Mr. Birchfield’s leadership, was at the forefront of the Vioxx litigation from the filing of the earliest lawsuits, to the formation of the MDL, through the bellwether trial process, and until the last Vioxx claimant was paid through the settlement.

Beasley Allen submitted common benefit hours in the amount of approximately 36,-747.75, of which 20,126 were senior lawyer hours. Beasley Allen incurred more than $3,580,230.05 in common benefit costs and paid $355,000 in PSC assessments. Beasley Allen enrolled approximately 5,000 claimants in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $37,209,289. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $36,860,953.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis

&

Miles, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $36,612,459.44.

15) Becnel Law Firm, LLC

Daniel Becnel served on the Science Committee. Mr. Becnel filed a motion for the MDL to be formed in New Orleans. The Becnel Law Firm employed contract lawyers that participated in document review. The Becnel Law Firm submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 13,038.25 hours, and only 406 of those hours were attributable to Mr. Becnel personally. The rest were submitted by contract attorneys employed by Mr. Becnel. Most of the hours logged by the contract lawyers were spent reviewing documents in the document depository. Of Mr. Becnel’s hours, 403.5 were categorized for case assessment and 2.5 were for discovery. None of those hours were for work on any trials. The Becnel Law Firm incurred $149,862.08 in common benefit costs, $6,343.71 of which has not been approved. The firm also enrolled approximately 225 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $455,000. The firm objected to that amount and presented evidence and testimony at the Special Master’s evidentiary hearing. The Special Master recommended an award of $270,000. In his report the Special Master concluded that the evidence revealed that Mr. Becnel took no depositions, tried no cases, and was not involved in any leadership or trial role in the litigation. The Special Master also noted that:

There were 3,054.75 duplicate hours that [ ] were submitted by Becnel and another attorney for the same work. Compare FAC Exhibit 4 (Becnel time submissions for period January 2005 until May 2005) and FAC Exhibit 4 (Neblet

*783

Beard and Arsenault time submissions for the same period) and see also (Transcript of Hearing on May 12, 2011 at pp. 104-111). The other submitting attorney did make the disclosures required by Pre-Trial Order 6D and those hours were considered in recommending an award for common benefit compensation. Becnel claims that a mistake was made in two different submissions being made for the same work. It is the finding of the Special Master that a mistake was made, but the fact remains that errors were made and that Becnel did not make the disclosures as required by Pre-Trial Order 6.

Becnel submitted over 500 hours for time expended by Margaret Parker (FAC Exhibit 4). At the Special Master hearing, Becnel admitted that he did not know Margaret Parker (Transcript of Hearing on May 12, 2011 at pp. 111-112, 127). At the Special Master Hearing, Becnel admitted that there were numerous entries that were submitted as common benefit time that were actually for work on individual cases and that this work should not be given common benefit consideration (Transcript of Hearing on May 12, 2011 at pp. 113-116, 123).

The Court has reviewed the materials adduced at the Special Master’s hearing and the CPA’s records and concludes that although Mr. Becnel submitted 3,129.75 duplicate hours, those hours were rejected by the CPA and were not considered by the Court when it set the common benefit fund or performed the lodestar cross-check. The Court finds these factual findings of the Special Master to be supported by the record and adopts them.

As mentioned above, Mr. Becnel himself logged 406 hours in common benefit work. But only 93.75 hours were submitted between 2006 and 2009, and all but 2.5 hours were categorized as “case assessment.”

Taking all of the above into consideration and factoring in the Court’s experience in this matter, and based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Becnel Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $500,000. This amount would reimburse this applicant for the amount paid to the contract attorneys and allow him a fee for supervising their work. It would also pay him a reasonable fee for the work he himself performed in discovery and general administration.

16) Robert M. Becnel

Robert M. Becnel submitted 924.25 common benefit hours, of which 20.75 hours were expended by Mr. Becnel and related to attendance to status conferences and other MDL-related meetings. Of the total hours, 881 hours appear to have been devoted to discovery, specifically the review of one custodial file. Mr. Becnel incurred $1,275.58 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $30,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $30,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Robert M. Becnel, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $30,000.

17) Bencomo & Associates

Bencomo & Associates submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 1,513.50 hours, of which 303 hours appear to be partner hours. The hours were devoted to document review in MDL document depositories in New York, Alabama, and Louisiana. Bencomo & Associates incurred $14,055.27 in common benefit costs.

*784

The FAC recommended an award of $327,500. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $327,500.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Bencomo & Associates, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $327,500.

18)Blizzard, McCarthy & Nabers

Ed Blizzard served on the NPC, Gates Committee, and the FAC. Ed Blizzard has over twenty years experience in pharmaceutical and medical device cases and has served in leadership roles in other MDLs. Blizzard, McCarthy & Nabers began working on Vioxx in 2004, near the time that Vioxx was withdrawn from the market. In February, 2006, one of Mr. Blizzard’s cases was selected for a bellwether trial in the MDL. From the time that this case was selected until the completion of the trial in November 2006, the resources of the firm were devoted almost entirely to the Vioxx litigation. All three partners of the firm performed extensive work in connection with the bellwether trial.

Mr. Blizzard served on the NPC and for eleven months committed substantial amounts of time to negotiating a resolution of the Vioxx litigation. Mr. Blizzard’s efforts were critical in working out the details of a complex settlement agreement that has resulted in the efficient and fair compensation for participating Vioxx claimants.

After the settlement was announced, Mr. Blizzard traveled throughout the country to help explain the details of the Vioxx settlement agreement. Mr. Blizzard and members of his firm also expended considerable time serving as members of the Liaison Committee to the Claims Administrator and serving on the Gates Committee. Blizzard, McCarthy

&

Nabers contributed 9,169.25 common benefit hours, of which 3,536.75 were key lawyer hours. The firm also expended $1,001,218.43 in common benefit expenses.

The FAC initially recommended an award of $11,600,000. At the conclusion of the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award $10,553,246. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $10,454,451.

Based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Blizzard, McCarthy & Nabers, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $10,488,974.87.

19) Bossier & Associates

Bossier & Associates submitted 102.50 common benefit hours. Sheila M. Bossier was a member of the Discovery Committee. The majority of the submitted hours were devoted to document review. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee.

The FAC recommended an award of $20,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $20,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Bossier & Associates, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $20,000.

20) Branch Law Firm

The Branch Law Firm submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 7.087.50 hours. Of these hours, 5,172 hours were devoted to case assessment,

*785

development, and administration, 730.25 hours to pre-trial pleadings and motions, and 1,159.50 hours to discovery. The total amount of time devoted to trial was only 25.75 hours; the majority of the hours were attributable to case assessment. The Branch Firm incurred $406,059.86 in common benefit costs. The majority of the Branch Law Firm’s contributions were made in the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation where the firm represented eleven clients whose cases were selected for expedited discovery and potential trial selection, although the Branch Firm also had one case scheduled for trial in Texas. The Branch Law Firm enrolled approximately 2200 cases in the settlement program. They were briefly appointed to the State Liaison Committee in the MDL, but resigned from that position.

The FAC initially recommended no award of common benefit fees for the Branch Firm. The firm objected to that recommendation. In its briefing and at the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC took the position that the Branch Firm did not have a sustained leadership role in the MDL. Further, the FAC stated that in the New Jersey litigation the Branch Firm was focused on preparing its eleven cases for trial and defended depositions of the plaintiffs or their spouses but did not depose any Merck witnesses, doctors, prescribes, sales representatives, or expert witnesses, and in fact none of the eleven cases ever received a trial date. The Special Master recommended an award of $190,000.

The Branch Firm argues that because its 7,087.50 hours constitute 1.2523 percent of the total number of hours considered by the Court in fixing the total common benefit fund, therefore it should be entitled to 1.2523 percent of the fund, or an amount of $3,947,875.75. The Branch Firm described its common benefit time as time spent “attending hearings in New Jersey, participating in Science and Discovery Committee, speaking with Mr. Buchanan [a partner at Seeger, Weiss and a leader in the New Jersey litigation], getting cases that Judge Higbee, you know, ordered for expedited discovery. Because the better the cases you have prepared for trial, the better the verdict is going to be, the more it’s going to drive a settlement.”

The Special Master concluded that the Branch Firm’s work was more appropriately characterized as for the benefit of the firm’s individual clients, rather than for the common benefit. However, he also concluded that “the Branch Firm did do some common benefit work and for the amount and type of common benefit work the Branch Firm performed, it is the finding and recommendation of the Special Master that an appropriate and just award for the Branch Firm is $190,000.”

The Court has already explained why a mechanical allocation of common benefit fees solely according to hours worked is inadequate in this MDL proceeding. The Court must look to the nature of the work and its contribution to the common benefit and the favorable resolution of the matter. The record discloses that the vast majority of the Branch Firm’s hours were for work done in New Jersey on eleven cases set for trial before Judge Higbee. The testimony of the Branch Firm’s representative at the Special Master’s hearing and the Court’s own review of the Branch Firm’s time sheets discloses that the work consisted mainly of internal meetings regarding the eases selected for trial in New Jersey, consistent appearances at status conferences, reviewing pretrial orders, reviewing Merck-produced documents in preparation for trial, and participating in a number of depositions between May, 2007 and November, 2007. The Branch Firm tried no cases and did not play a meaningful leadership role either in the MDL or in the

*786

New Jersey litigation, but their work in the New Jersey litigation did have a salutary effect on the ultimate resolution of the Vioxx litigation.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Branch Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $500,000. This amount, of course, is in addition to the contingent fee amounts that this firm earned in connection with the work performed in advancing the specific cases in which they were primary counsel.

21) Brandi Law Firm

The Brandi Law Firm tried one of the two bellwether trials in the California Coordinated Litigation. The Brandi Law Firm was lead counsel in

Arrigale v. Merck & Co.,

which was consolidated for trial in the California state court with

Appell v. Merck & Co.

The case ended in a mistrial and preparations were ongoing for a second trial when the settlement program was announced.

The Brandi Law Firm submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 5,214.95 hours, of which 2,826.50 hours appear to be partner hours. The Brandi Firm incurred $340,355.44 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $970,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $970,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Brandi Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $970,000.

22) Brown & Crouppen, PC

Brown

&

Crouppen, PC submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 783.75 hours, of which 507.25 hours were submitted by John Driscoll, a former associate with the firm. Brown

&

Crouppen, PC were referring counsel and participated in the bellwether trial,

Schwaller v. Merck & Co.,

which was tried in state court in Madison County, Illinois. The firm also enrolled more than 400 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $73,000. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $73,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Brown & Croup-pen, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $73,000.

23)Bruce Dean, LLC

Bruce Dean LLC submitted a total of 10.5 common benefit hours. An Affidavit in support of the Petition for Common Benefit Fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Bruce Dean, LLC, the firm is not awarded common benefit fees.

23) Bruno & Bruno, LLP

Joseph M. Bruno and the firm of Bruno

&

Bruno, LLP submitted hours which were rejected by the Court-appointed CPA’s office as untimely and for failure to comply with the PTO guidelines for time submission. Bruno & Bruno did not re

*787

spond to a notice from the CPA’s office rejecting those hours. Accordingly, the FAC’s initial proposed recommendation did not allocate any common benefit fee award to Bruno

&

Bruno. Bruno

&

Bruno objected to its absence from the FAC’s recommendation, submitting again documentation of hours worked and requesting an award of common benefit fees for 319.50 hours of work done participating in document review, attending meetings, hearings, and conferences, and reviewing pleadings and discovery responses. No attorney with Bruno & Bruno served on the PSC or any state or MDL committees or subcommittees.

After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $75,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $75,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Bruno and Bruno, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $75,000.

25) Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, P.C.

Michael S. Burg was a member of the State Liaison Committee. John Restaino served as the Co-Chair of the MDL Science Committee. John Restaino shared responsibility for the development of the scientific evidence and plaintiff experts in the MDL. He participated in the preparation of MDL expert reports, took and defended expert depositions, and assisted in preparing experts for trial. Mr. Restaino oversaw the development, with Dr. Egil Fosslien, of an animation depicting the effects of Vioxx in coronary arteries at the time of a myocardial infarction. Mr. Restaino played a vital support role for three MDL trials. Mr. Restaino also contributed to the Stroke Subcommittee.

Scott Eldredge was a member of the Science Committee and the Sales and Marketing Committee. Mr. Eldredge reviewed documents relevant to the cross examination of Merck/Frosst employees. In addition, he assisted in the review of documents and preparation for the depositions of Dr. Susan Baumgardner, Deborah Nieole-Griffiths, and Tom Cannell. Max Yefimenko was member of the MDL Science Committee and contributed to the development of the plaintiffs’ case in regard to mechanism of action and pharmacology and to the analysis of numerous scientific articles. In addition, Mr. Yefimenko worked with MDL experts. Other members of the firm reviewed documents and attended meetings.

Burg Simpson submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 2,599.75 hours, of which 1,515.75 were partner hours. John Restaino’s common benefit contribution as a shareholder of Burg Simpson began in January 1, 2007. Prior to that time, his contributions were as a shareholder of Lopez, Hodes, Restaino, Milman & Skikkos. Burg Simpson incurred $20,321.56 in common benefit costs and enrolled more than 150 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $500,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $500,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh

&

Jardine, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $500,000.

26) Cafferty Faucher

Cafferty Faucher submitted 207.50 common benefit hours, of which 15.25 hours were partner hours. An affi

*788

davit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC. Cafferty Faucher submitted $1,441.62 in common benefit expenses.

The FAC recommended an award of $30,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $30,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Cafferty Faucher, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $30,000.

27) Capshaw Goss

Capshaw Goss submitted 152.50 common benefit hours, of which 109.25 were partner hours. All hours submitted by the firm were devoted to case assessment, development, and administration. Tim Goss was a member of the Purchase Claims Committee. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC. Capshaw Goss submitted $3,306.50 in common benefit expenses, $1,000 of which is in dispute.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Capshaw Goss, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

28) Carey & Danis

Carey

&

Danis, in conjunction with the Lowe Law Firm, were lead counsel in

Auslander v. Merck & Co.

and

Donahoo v. Merck & Co.,

two cases which were set for trial in Illinois state court. In

Donahoo,

members of the firms participated in extensive discovery, including depositions of plaintiffs, sales representatives, case specific experts and treating physicians. In

Auslander,

discovery was ongoing until the announcement of the settlement program. Carey & Danis submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 5,518.25 hours, of which 1,749.50 were partner hours. Carey & Danis incurred common benefit expenses in the amount of $98,725.28 and enrolled approximately 1900 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC initially recommended no award. At the conclusion of the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $350,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $350,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Carey & Danis, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $350,000.

29) Charfoos & Christiansen

Charfoos

&

Christiansen submitted a total of 396.75 hours. An Affidavit in support of the Petition for Common Benefit Fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommendation. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Charfoos

&

Christiansen, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

30) Childers, Buck & Schlueter

Childers, Buck

&

Schlueter submitted 74.5 hours for common benefit, of which

*789

63.75 hours were partner hours. These hours were not documented in accordance with Pre-Trial Order No. 6, and the hours were not accepted by the Court-appointed CPA. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Childers, Buck & Schlueter, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

31) Cohen Milstein

Daniel Sigelman was a member of the MDL Science Committee. In addition, Mr. Sigelman and other members of Cohen Milstein contributed to a science working group which supported the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation, specifically the trial teams in

Cona/McDarby v. Merck & Co.

and

Hermans/Humeston v. Merck & Co.

Cohen Milstein assisted in uncovering and developing liability and causation evidence against Merck in the scientific area. Specifically, Mr. Sigelman worked extensively with plaintiff experts, Dr. Harlan Krumholz, Dr. David Egilman, and Dr. David Madigan. He assisted in the drafting of Dr. Madigan’s expert report. In addition, Mr. Sigelman prepared a detailed analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials that showed how Merck excluded important clinical trial data. This analysis was used during the

Hermans/Humeston

trial. Mr. Sigelman took the deposition of Merck employee, Dr. Ned Braunstein. From August 2005 until November 2007, Mr. Sigelman devoted the majority of his professional time to the Vioxx litigation to the exclusion of other available projects. Mr. Sigelman reviewed documents and analyzed the scientific literature for purposes of assisting in the development of plaintiffs’ scientific liability case and defeating Merck’s “placebo-controlled gold standard” defense. Mr. Sigelman also assisted in gathering evidence to establish general causation.

Cohen Milstein submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 2,003.75, of which 1,753.50 were partner hours. Cohen Milstein incurred $5,699.56 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $750,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $750,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Cohen Milstein, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $750,000.

32) Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC

Cohen, Placitella & Roth focused its efforts on discovering the marketing and public relations activities of Merck in response to its knowledge of the dangers of Vioxx. Members of the firm reviewed more than 100,000 documents, including the custodial files of key Merck employees such as David Anstice, Jo Jerman, Charlotte McKines, Wendy Dixon, Jan Weiner and Mary Elizabeth Blake. Chris Placitella took the depositions of Jan Weiner and Mary Elizabeth Blake. Both depositions were used in bellwether trials. Cohen Plaeitella’s discovery efforts yielded materials from Merck and third-parties relevant to Merck’s knowledge of the risks of Vioxx and its marketing efforts, which played a role in bellwether trials. Mr. Placitella also provided trial support during several bellwether trials in the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation.

*790

Cohen Placitella worked with the following plaintiff experts: Dr. David Egilman, Dr. Jay Geller (FDA), Dr. Sander Greenland (epidemiologist), Michael Hoffman (ethicist), Dr. John Kostis (cardiologist), Dr. David Madigan (biostatistician), Dr. Anthony Altobelli (cardiologist), and Thomas Nesi (marketing and public relations).

Cohen, Placitella & Roth submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 4,964 hours, of which 3764.25 were partner hours. Cohen, Placitella & Roth incurred $112,452.57 in common benefit expenses and enrolled approximately 290 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC initially recommended an award of $500,000. The firm objected to that recommendation. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $3,500,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $3,500,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Cohen, Placitella & Roth, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $3,500,000.

33)Cunard Law Firm

Rebecca Cunard served on the Discovery Committee, Science Committee, Sales and Marketing Subcommittee, Theme Grid Subcommittee, and FDA Defense subcommittee. Cunard Law Firm submitted 2,790.75 common benefit hours. These hours were devoted primarily to document review. Rebecca A. Cunard submitted a total of 658 hours personally. The remaining hours were expended by contract lawyers hired by Ms. Cunard and devoted to case assessment, administration, and document review. Cunard Law Firm incurred $17,005.57 in common benefit expenses.

The FAC recommended an award of $100,000. The firm objected to that recommended amount. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $375,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that award. The Special Master recommended an award of $375,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Cunard Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $375,000.

34) Cuneo

&

Gilbert

Cuneo & Gilbert provided consulting services and were paid on a contract basis by the PSC.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, Cuneo & Gilbert is awarded no common benefit fees.

35) Robert J. DeBry

Robert J. DeBry submitted common benefit time in the amount of 31 hours, all of which were devoted to discovery. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC. Mr. DeBry submitted common benefit costs in the amount of $958.07.

The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The attorney has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Robert J. DeBry,

*791

the attorney is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

36) Dugan & Browne

Dugan & Browne submitted 114.25 hours. An Affidavit in support of the Petition for Common Benefit Fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC. The time submitted pertains to work done on the Purchase Claims Committee and the Louisiana AG action. Both are ongoing matters.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Dugan & Browne, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

37) Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack

Walter J. Lack, along with members of his firm, worked with Dr. Cheryl Blume and other experts to assist in the development of the general causation case in the California Consolidated Litigation. Mr. Lack also reviewed the sale of stock by key Merck employees, engaging an expert and proving that Merck employees sold stock at all time high prices in advance of the announcement of negative safety data. Members of the firm contributed to a comprehensive chronology of the case that was used in the California litigation. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 6,866.95 hours, of which 1,076.50 hours appear to be partner hours.

The FAC recommended an award of $390,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $390,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $390,000.

38)Escobedo, Tippit & Cardenas; Snapka, Turman & Waterhouse

The common benefit applications of Escobedo, Tippit & Cardenas (“Escobedo Tippit”) and Snapka, Turman & Water-house (“Snapka”) are related and accordingly the Court will address their award jointly. Collectively, Snapka and Escobedo Tippit request ten percent of the entire common benefit fund, or $31,525,000.00 between them.

Escobedo Tippit was lead counsel in

Garza v. Merck & Co.,

a case which was tried in Texas state court. The case was tried for four weeks over a four-month period and resulted in a plaintiffs verdict in the amount of $32 million. On appeal, the verdict was first reversed and judgment rendered in favor of Merck. Upon rehearing, the appellate court withdrew that opinion and reversed on the basis of jury misconduct.

Merck & Co. v. Garza,

277 S.W.3d 430 (Tex.App.2008). The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in denying Merck’s motion for a new trial after it came to light that one of the jurors had received interest-free loans from the decedent’s wife and that phone calls had been made from the juror’s phone to the decedent’s wife’s phone around the time of the case.

See id.

at

440-42.

An appeal is still pending with the Texas Supreme Court. The case was filed prior to the formation of the Vioxx MDL. Members of the Escobedo firm engaged in extensive discovery which included reviewing thousands of documents produced specifically in the

Garza

case, developing and preparing general causation and case specific experts, and

*792

conducting case specific discovery. Members of the firm deposed ten Merck employees, including Linda Hostelley, Dr. Leonard Tacconi, Dr. Deborah Shapiro, James Dunn, Bernadette McKeon, Dr. Alise Reicin, Dr. Nancy Santanello, and Dr. Thomas Bold. Other depositions were taken of Merck sales representatives.

Escobedo Tippit submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 14,886.75 hours, of which 6,238.50 appear to be partner hours. Escobedo Tippit incurred $444,938.71 in common benefit expenses. All of the hours and costs submitted by Escobedo Tippit for common benefit consideration were expended in the preparation and trial of the

Garza

case. The

Garza

case was excluded from the terms of the Master Settlement Agreement by agreement of all parties.

Kathryn Snapka served as co-counsel in

Garza v. Merck & Co.

Ms. Snapka was also lead counsel in the case of

Zajicek v. Merck & Co.,

which was scheduled to be tried in Texas state court in February 2008, but was continued when the settlement program was announced. Extensive discovery had been conducted in that case, including numerous depositions, prior to the continuance. Ms. Snapka served for a period of time as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel for the Texas Consolidated Litigation. She also performed other services in the MDL.

Snapka, Turman & Waterhouse submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 2,926.5, of which 1,830 hours were Ms. Snapka’s. Snapka, Turman & Waterhouse incurred $107,264.03 in common benefit expenses.

With respect to Escobedo Tippit, the FAC recommended no award. With respect to Snapka, the FAC recommended an award of $75,000. Both firms objected to those recommended awards and participated in the Special Master’s hearing.

The FAC based its recommendation on the contention that all of Escobedo Tippit’s work was in the

Garza

case and none of it was shared, and that the majority of Snapka’s work was in the

Garza

case. Moreover, the FAC contends that the

Garza

case, at the plaintiffs’ attorney’s request, was excluded from the settlement and no common benefit fee was due from that case.

The Special Master heard testimony and argument from Escobedo Tippit, Snapka, and the FAC and made findings of fact regarding the common benefit contribution of those firms. In his report, the Special Master states:

Escobedo claimed no common benefit contribution apart from his work in the

Garza

case (Deposition of Andy Birch-field on May 6, 2011 at p. 199). Escobedo claims his firm is entitled to $20,000,000 for the work his firm did in the

Garza

case. (Transcript of Hearing on May 9, 2011 at p. 64). Snapka claims she is entitled to $12,000,000 for her work which included the

Garza

case (Transcript of Hearing on May 11, 2011 at p. 221).

One contention of the FAC was that Escobedo and Snapka had opted the

Garza

case out of the settlement program and, therefore, there should be no credit given for their work in that case. The testimony at the hearing does not support the FAC’s contention that Escobedo and Snapka opted the

Garza

case out of the settlement with Merck. On the other hand, the settlement agreement clearly provides that the

Garza

case is not part of the settlement program. The end result is that the

Garza

attorneys would be entitled to whatever attorney fees are generated in the

Garza

case and they would not be obligated to pay any common benefit assessment in the present action. At the Spe

*793

cial Master hearing, Escobedo testified that if they were ultimately successful and were paid in the

Garza

case, they were willing to pay the common benefit assessment (Transcript of the Hearing on May 11, 2011 at p. 46). Since the

Garza

case is excluded from the settlement agreement, the assessment is not an obligation they would owe. This circumstance must also be considered with the fact that the

Garza

attorneys elected to remand the case to state court and that Snapka had sought exemption from the common benefit assessment (Transcript of Hearing on May 11, 2011 at pp. 180-182). With these set of facts, the issue before the Special Master is what credit, if any, should be given to the work performed in the

Garza

case.

A review of the record, exhibits and transcripts of meetings with the FAC reveals that two other law firms who actually tried cases in state courts that were excluded from the settlement agreement received recommended awards. The Locks Firm received a recommended award of $1,700,000 and the Heninger, Garrison & Davis Firm received a recommended award of $1,300,000____It is the finding and recommendation of the Special Master that these two firms represent comparable situations and serve as a reasonable and just basis for a recommended award to Escobedo and Snapka for their work in the

Garza

case.

It is the finding and recommendation of the Special Master that a total of $1,450,000 should be awarded for the work performed by Escobedo and Snapka in the

Garza

case. As between Escobedo and Snapka, an analysis of the testimony demonstrates that a division of the recommended award between the attorneys for work in the

Garza

case is required.

Snapka prepared and handled the direct testimony of Dr. Simonini in the

Garza

trial. Mr. Hockema did the general voir dire and Snapka did the specific voir dire. Snapka also did the direct examination of two sons. She also cross-examined Dr. Wheeler and prepared for the anticipated testimony of Dr. Alise Reicin. Snapka was also involved in the remand proceedings of the

Garza

case (Transcript of Hearing on May 11, 2011 at p. 110). In describing her involvement in the case as compared to Hockema and Escobedo, Snapka said they “were leaps and bounds ahead of me” (Transcript of Hearing on May 11, 2011 at p. 118). Hockema stated that Snapka had a limited role in the case (Deposition of Andy Birchfield on May 6, 2011 at p. 183). Without question, the bulk of the work in the

Garza

case was done by the Escobedo interest.

It is the finding and recommendation of the Special Master that an appropriate and just division of the $1,450,000 recommended award for work in the

Garza

case is $1,087,500 to Escobedo and $362,500 to Snapka.

Snapka performed common benefit work that was beyond the work she did in the

Garza

case. This work included 'her efforts for a period of time in her role as Notice Counsel in Texas, appearances and input at MDL status conferences, her efforts on use of retained blood and limited briefing and participation in the preemption-related issues. For her work on these matters Snapka should receive an additional compensation. It is the finding and recommendation of the Special Master that an appropriate and just award for this additional common benefit work is $150,000 for a total award of $512,500.

The Court largely agrees with the observations made by the Special Master. A strong argument can be made that a rigorous presentation in any trial in any court

*794

attacking Merck’s actions or inactions regarding Vioxx will have some salutary rippling effect on all other cases. But the significance of that effort may be different in each case depending on the ultimate result, the time it was rendered, and whether or not the work and efforts were shared or made available to others.

The firm awards cited by the Special Master in justifying his recommendation-the Locks Firm’s award and the Heninger, Garrison, & Davis Firm’s award-are distinguishable. Each of those firms performed common benefit work on other matters. For example, the Locks firm re-reviewed large numbers of documents produced in relation to Scientific Therapeutics, Inc. Moreover, the Locks firm had three cases that were selected as discovery pool cases and extensive work was done to prepare the cases and the cases were eligible for trial selection. With regard to the Heninger firm, that firm also extensively worked with experts and provided significant support for other bellwether trials.

Escobedo Tippit, by contrast, performed no common benefit work other than the work on the

Garza

case, which was excluded from the settlement program. The end result was that the

Garza

attorneys would be entitled to whatever attorneys’ fees were generated in the

Garza

case and they would not be obligated to pay any common benefit assessment. As mentioned, the case was tried to a Texas state jury and an award of $32,000,000 was obtained. Unfortunately for the litigant, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment on that verdict, and further appeals remain pending.

Garza,

277 S.W.3d 430 . Now Escobedo Tippit seeks $20,000,000 as common benefit fees for its work in

Garza ,

a case specifically excluded from of the Settlement Program and for which it owed no common benefit fees. This request rings hollow.

Taking into consideration the recommendations of the Special Master and the FAC, and applying the experience this Court has accumulated in this matter, the Court concludes that a fair common benefit fee for Escobedo Tippit is $1,600,000.00. This figure takes into consideration the work performed in the

Garza

case and its salutary effect on the Vioxx litigation. As elsewhere explained in this opinion, the purpose of the common benefit fee is not to pay counsel for his or her work in a specific case. That is the purpose of the contingent fee in that case. The purpose of the common benefit fee is to compensate counsel for work which inured to the common benefit of the whole litigation.

Snapka’s contribution to the MDL’s resolution is a bit different. True, like Escobedo she spent significant time on the

Garza

case and incurred some $107,264.03 in costs. But she also performed work beyond the

Garza

case. This work included her efforts for a period of time as notice counsel in Texas, appearances and input at MDL status conferences, her efforts on the use of retained blood and her work in briefing and argument in the preemption-related issues. Taking all of this into consideration, the Court finds that an appropriate common benefit award for Snapka is $1,100,000.

39) Fayard & Honeycutt

Fayard & Honeycutt submitted 416 common benefit hours, of which 107.25 were partner hours. These hours were devoted exclusively to case assessment, development, and administration. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the Fee Allocation Committee.

The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The

*795

Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Fayard

&

Honeycutt, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

40)Fibich, Hampton & Leebron, LLP

Kenny T. “Tommy” Fibich was a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the Texas Consolidated Litigation and the MDL State Liaison Committee. In his role in the Texas litigation, Mr. Fibich was Notice Counsel and he worked closely with members of the Texas PSC to develop litigation strategy, select experts, evaluate trial cases, and conduct discovery. Mr. Fibich and members of his firm developed pretrial and case management orders in the Texas MDL, attended hearings, participated in considerable motion practice, and provided support to plaintiffs’ counsel who were not members of the Texas PSC. Fibich, Hampton

&

Leebron were co-counsel in the Texas MDL bellwether case of

Ledbetter v. Merck & Co.

Mr. Fibich and others members of his firm engaged in extensive discovery, worked with case specific experts, contributed extensively to the briefing and hearings on motions, including motions in limine and a motion to dismiss based on preemption. Following the decision of Judge Randy Wilson to grant the motion to dismiss based on preemption, Mr. Fibich worked with others to appeal the decision.

Fibich, Hampton & Leebron submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 2,021.25, of which 403.75 were partner hours. Fibich, Hampton & Leebron incurred $80,640.50 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $610,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $610,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Fibich, Hampton & Leebron, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $610,000.

41) Freese & Goss

Freese & Goss submitted 794 common benefit hours, of which 412.5 were partner hours. 624.25 of the total submitted hours were devoted to case assessment, development, and administration. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC. Freese & Goss submitted $10,239.37 in common benefit costs to the Fee Allocation Committee. $7,198.39 of these costs was approved; the remainder is in dispute. The firm also enrolled approximately 440 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm objected to that recommendation. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $25,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $25,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Freese & Goss, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $25,000.

42) Friedman Law Offices

Friedman Law Offices submitted 20.5 common benefit hours. At the request of the PSC, the Friedman Law Offices assisted with the filing of a statewide class action.

The FAC recommended an award of $6,500. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings.

*796

The Special Master recommended an award of $6,500.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Friedman Law Offices, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $6,500.

43)Gainsburgh, Benjamin, Davis, Meunier & Warshauer, LLC

Gerald E. Meunier served as a member of the MDL PSC. Mr. Meunier chaired the Trial Package Committee and was also a member of the Law and Briefing Committee. Mr. Meunier served as co-counsel in the

Irvin II v. Merck & Co.,

arguing motions in limine, jury charges, and Daubert issues. He participated in a support role in

Irvin I,

assisting with briefing on Daubert and other legal issues. Mr. Meunier was co-trial counsel with Russ Herman in

Diaz v. Merck & Co.,

and in that role, assisted Bonnie Zabotnick in the preparation of the case prior to its dismissal. Mr. Meunier also assisted the trial teams in the

Barnett

and

Dedrick

MDL trials, giving input into jury selection, jury charges, and legal research. As a member of the Law and Briefing Committee, Mr. Meunier took a lead role in negotiating the case management order for class certification. In relation to the MDL Trial Package, Mr. Meunier, along with Co-Chair Pete Kaufman, provided leadership to the preparation of the trial packages for both heart attack and stroke claims.

Gainsburgh, Benjamin, Davis, Meunier & Warshauer submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 1,216 hours, of which 1,151.50 hours were Mr. Meunier’s. Gainsburgh, Benjamin, Davis, Meunier & Warshauer incurred $15,208.64 in common benefit costs. In addition, the firm paid $355,000.00 in PSC assessments.

The FAC recommended an award of $2,690,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $2,690,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Gainsburgh, Benjamin, Davis, Meunier & Warshauer, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $2,500,000.

44) Gallagher Law Firm

The Gallagher Law Firm submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 1,219.5, of which 1,033 were partner hours. Key lawyer hours were devoted to trial preparation in the Texas Consolidated Litigation. The firm enrolled approximately 360 cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $40,000. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $40,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Gallagher Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $40,000.

45) Gancedo & Nieves, LLP

Tina Nieves was a member of the MDL Discovery Committee, Science Committee, Sales and Marketing Committee, as well as Chair of the Science Research, Publications

&

Society Meetings Subcommittee. Hector Gancedo was a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee of the California Consolidated Litigation. Members of the firm designed and developed a multi-media timeline and integrated document database that became part of the MDL trial package. Ms. Nieves and other members of the firm assisted in the development of a Science Theme Grid Database that summarized and provided access to

*797

relevant medical literature. Ms. Nieves worked with experts such as Dr. Singh, Dr. Miriam Sturkenboom, Dr. Connie Pechman, Dr. Gunnar Gislason, Dr. Lemuel Moye, Dr. Francesco Cippolone, and Dr. John LaPuma. Ms. Nieves attended and reported on various scientific meetings. Members of the firm deposed sales representatives as part of a Sales & Marketing Committee project. Members of the firm also reviewed documents in the California depository. Gancedo

&

Nieves submitted 3,649.25 common benefit hours. Gancedo & Nieves incurred $146,983.76 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $600,000. The firm objected to that recommended amount. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $700,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $700,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Gancedo & Nieves, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $700,000.

46)Gianni Petoyan

Gianni Petoyan submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 314.75, of which 274.75 were partner hours. Members of the firm participated in the preparation of the

Arrigale v. Merck & Co.

bellwether trial. The firm’s work on the case included review and analysis of plaintiff medical records, preparation of case specific experts, and preparation and participation in depositions of plaintiff treating physicians. Gianni Petoyan incurred $86,308.50 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $30,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $30,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Gianni Petoyan, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $30,000.

47) Girardi & Keese

Tom Girardi served on the NPC, the FAC, and served as Co-Lead Counsel for the California Coordinated Litigation. Mr. Girardi has extensive experience from his leadership roles in numerous MDLs, class actions and complex cases. Tom Girardi and his firm served as Lead Counsel for one of the bellwether trials conducted in California state court. Girardi & Keese provided excellent leadership in the California Coordinated Litigation. The firm was involved in Vioxx litigation before the drug was pulled off the market and remained active in the litigation through the settlement phase and the fee allocation process. The firm expended 20,469.5 hours in common benefit work and incurred common benefit costs in the amount of $1,260,020.01. Girardi & Keese enrolled over one thousand cases in the settlement program.

The FAC recommended an award of $20,100,000. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $18,286,228. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $18,115,041.

Based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Girardi & Keese, including the work in coordinating the work of the California cases, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $18, 200, 00.00.

48) Goldenberg Heller

Goldenberg Heller initially submitted hours to the CPA. However, the submis

*798

sion did not comply with Pretrial Order 6 and none of the time submitted was accepted by the Court-appointed CPA. An Affidavit in support of the Petition for Common Benefit Fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommendation. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Goldenberg Heller, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

49) Goza & Honnold

The FAC recommended an award of $70,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $70,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Goza & Honnold, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $70,000.

50) Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman submitted 236 common benefit hours. The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Hagens Berman, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

51) Heins Mills

Heins Mills submitted 12.5 common benefit hours. At the request of the PSC, Heins Mills assisted with the filing of a statewide class action.

The FAC recommended an award of $4,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $4,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Heins Mills, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $4,000.

52) Heninger, Garrison & Davis, LLC

Heninger, Garrison & Davis was lead counsel in

Albright v. Merck & Co.,

a bellwether case tried in state court in Alabama. Though the case resulted in a defense verdict, the efforts of the trial team advanced the overall litigation. The firm also worked extensively with experts and provided support for other bellwether trials. The firm submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 5,044, of which 4,180 appear to be partner hours. Heninger, Garrison & Davis incurred $269,578.55 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $1,000,000. The firm objected to that recommended amount. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $1,300,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $1,300,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Heninger, Garrison & Davis Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $1,300,000.

53) Herman, Herman, Katz and Cotlar

Before Vioxx was pulled from the market, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar

*799

(“HHK & C”) had undertaken investigation of Vioxx and its risks. Partners in the firm, including Russ M. Herman, attended seminars and working groups in Texas, New York and Washington, DC and began to accumulate journal articles and other evaluation materials. The firm filed several cases and attended the JPML hearing which resulted in MDL Docket Number 1657 being assigned to this Court.

Soon after the MDL was assigned to this Court, Russ Herman was approached by Chris Seeger, Andy Birchfield, Arnold Levin, Mark Robinson and others who had been pursuing Merck in New Jersey and elsewhere, and whose firms had established depositories in New York City, NY, Montgomery, AL and Los Angeles, CA. They requested that he organize a meeting for interested firms and plan to coordinate depositions. Russ Herman then organized a meeting in New Orleans for all attorneys wishing to participate in the MDL. More than 100 lawyers attended that initial meeting. After several experienced attorneys offered their services as Liaison Counsel, more than 80% elected Russ Herman.

HHK

&

C set about immediately to establish a depository which could organize and coordinate the three existing depositories, and manage documents, depositions, trial transcripts and other materials.

Subsequently, the Court appointed Chris Seeger and Andy Birchfield as Co-Lead Counsel and Russ Herman as Liaison Counsel and as the third member of an Executive Committee of the PSC. The Executive Committee appointed committee chairs and members and followed the Court’s directive to utilize non-PSC attorneys in the conduct of litigation. Liaison Counsel coordinated and monitored each of the committees.

Because the MDL was centered in New Orleans, organization, administration, and numerous other duties fell to Liaison Counsel who became a traffic manager and mediator among various plaintiff constituencies, Merck counsel, the Court, the Special Master and the Pro Se Curator, and the Court-appointed CPA. Numerous meetings were held between State Liaison and Liaison Counsel and information on state cases was routinely exchanged. Members of the Executive Committee including Liaison Counsel and Arnold Levin conducted meetings with several hundred law firms, explaining the functions of the MDL and enlisting their participation and their cooperation.

Discovery proceeded. Between March 18, 2005 and August 25, 2005, six status reports were prepared with Merck’s Counsel and submitted to the Court. Lexis Nexis File and Serve was engaged to perfect service of the voluminous pleadings in the MDL and Liaison Counsel facilitated efforts by the Clerk’s Office in the implementation of the Court’s Orders and Clerk’s directives.

Hurricane Katrina struck on August 29, 2005 followed in less than one month by Hurricane Rita. Between hurricanes, HHKC moved the master depository and all personnel to Houston. The first MDL bellwether trial which had been scheduled for New Orleans took place in Houston without having to be rescheduled. Five status conferences between September 29, 2005 and February 2, 2006 were scheduled in Houston and the duties of Liaison Counsel and the PSC proceeded uninterrupted during that time.

Discovery depositions also proceeded during the Houston period on September 21, 2005; September 28, 2005; September 29, 2005; September 30, 2005; October 4, 2005; October 5, 2005; October 12, 2005; October 13, 2005; October 18, 2005; October 26, 2005; October 27, 2005; November 2, 2005; November 21, 2005; November 22, 2005; November 23, 2005; December

*800

15, 2005; December 16, 2005; and December 19, 2005. The depositions were scheduled, assigned, and participated in by the MDL Executive Committee. HHK & C coordinated and reviewed documents for the depositions of Avorn, Baumgardner, Curfman, Farquhar, Luchessi, and Topol. The firm also participated in strategy discussions and outlined the depositions and potential deposition cuts.

During this period, thirty-six substantive motions were briefed and filed. All motions were subject to meet and confers, and of the twenty-three motions which were argued to the Court, all but two on behalf of plaintiffs were argued by Russ Herman.

Liaison Counsel oversaw the development of a trial package. The trial package has been supplemented several times and provided upon request to a number of firms and Attorneys General.

More than several hundred e-mails a day required coordination or answer by Liaison Counsel or his partners Leonard Davis and Stephen Herman. Several sets of discovery interrogatories to Merck were prepared. The interrogatories were formulated by the Executive Committee firms and the Levin firm. Numerous requests for production were also which resulted in numerous meet and confers, motions, and arguments before the Court. Liaison Counsel argued the essential motions.

Steve Herman, co-chair of Marketing Discovery and Vice-Chair of Insurance coordinated materials and propounded discovery. Leonard Davis, in addition to service in the administration of the case, was responsible for much of the e-discovery, coordination with the FDA, and every aspect of the litigation.

Liaison Counsel developed arguments for consideration at trials. Russ Herman monitored the trials in Texas and New Jersey and reported on progress with commentary to the PSC, committee chairs, and trial teams. In trials held in New Orleans, Herman was requested to do jury venire investigation and commentary and monitored all MDL trials except the

Barnett

trial. Liaison Counsel’s duty was to objectively report to the trial lawyer community the progress and pitfalls.

Liaison Counsel also assisted in other ways. Russ Herman and Jerry Meunier agreed to pay 50% of the expenses of and co-counsel the

Diaz

trial. Mr. Herman met with counsel for Diaz several times, interviewed expert witnesses and began a theme grid for trial before the case was withdrawn from trial. Russ Herman and Leonard Davis met with jury consultants retained by firms in the MDL and were responsible for resolving disputed bill issues with consultants.

HHK & C participated as primary actor in the following:

(a) 41 Primary Motions — submitted by the PSC and argued;

(b) 38 Responses to Merck’s motions were submitted and argued;

(c) 80% of the motions which were argued were argued by Russ Herman;

(d) 18 Status Conference reports;

(e) 52 Meets and confer on various issues;

(f) 110 Depositions in the MDL coordinated, taken and summarized;

(g) 49 Subpoena Duces Tecum issued;

(h) 27 Third-party requests; and,

(i) 277 substantive motions ruled upon in the MDL-Russ Herman was part of every motion, conference or argument.

The Court appointed Mr. Herman as chair of the NPC. For almost a year, the committee met face-to-face with Merck representatives. A number of conferences were held in out-of-state locations. Liaison Counsel, along with Doug Marvin, reported the progress on an ongoing basis to the Court.

*801

Andy Birchfield and Ed Blizzard developed a grid with input from the NPC. HHKC participated in testing the “MI” and “Stroke” grid against its inventory. HHKC also received a large sampling of claims of claimants not represented by NPC or PSC members for testing against the grid. The project was arduous and conducted in secret while the litigation moved forward in parallel.

Following a joint meeting in Washington, DC, the NPC met and authorized Russ Herman to negotiate the final dollars in settlement. The negotiation was concluded that evening for $4.85 billion dollars, the largest settlement of its kind. The acceptance rate, the accuracy of the NPC’s testing grid, and the speed of payouts all demonstrate the success of the negotiations.

Liaison Counsel traveled to five different states to conduct “Question and Answer” sessions regarding the Settlement Agreement. Liaison Counsel also served on the Gates Committee. Weekly communications with BrownGreer, the Garretson Firm, Special Master Juneau, and U.S. Bank continued post-settlement.

Numerous lawyers, pro se claimants, and represented claimants were referred to Liaison Counsel by the Court. On each occasion, Russ Herman or Leonard Davis communicated with the inquirers, gave answers and advices, referred represented claimants to their attorneys and referred pro se claimants to Robert Johnston, Pro Se Curator. This activity continues to this date.

Russ Herman, and the firm of Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar did not participate in other MDL litigations. In addition to playing the role of traffic manager among plaintiffs’ lawyers, HHK & C accounted for the third most recorded hours and Russ Herman alone accounted for approximately 10,000 personal hours during the litigation. The reported hours were recorded contemporaneously and not reconstructed. Further, the work performed by HHK

&

C was accomplished mostly by three partners and senior paralegals. HHK & C also expended more than $400,000 pre-settlement.

Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar submitted 29,483.5 hours in common benefit time. HHK & C incurred $184,493.75 in common benefit expenses, and paid $355,000 in PSC assessments.

The FAC recommended an award of $32,500,000. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $29,567,284. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $29,290,489.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, which included leadership, discovery, trial support, settlement, and distribution, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $26,044,436.30.

54) The Holman Law Firm

Holman Law Firm submitted a total of 212.50 hours. An Affidavit in support of the Petition for Common Benefit Fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by the Holman Law Firm, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

*802

55) Hovde, Dassow & Deets, LLC

Hovde, Dassow & Deets focused its efforts on the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation. In November 2005, the firm’s case,

LoPresti v. Merck & Co.,

was scheduled for trial in April 2006. Members of Hovde Dassow, along with co-counsel, participated in expedited discovery and trial preparation. They reviewed the custodial and personnel files of sales representatives, took the depositions of sales representatives and fact witnesses, participated in numerous discovery hearings, and retained and prepared expert witnesses. Together with Audet and Partners, Hovde Dassow participated in expedited discovery and trial preparation in thirteen other cases as well. Of particular note is the

Allen

case in which numerous depositions were taken, including the depositions of sales representatives, prescribing physicians, treating physicians, the plaintiff, and plaintiff family members. Members of the firm helped bring to light deficiencies in the process by which Merck identified and produced documents in relation to Merck Profile Forms.

Hovde, Dassow

&

Deets submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 8,546.5 hours, of which 5,630.5 were partner hours. Hovde, Dassow

&

Deets incurred $217,569.13 in common benefit expenses.

The FAC recommended an award of $1,165,000. The firm objected to this recommended amount. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $1,415,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $1,415,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Hovde, Dassow & Deets, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $1,415,000.

56) Irpino Law Firm

Anthony Irpino was the Chair of the Privilege Log Team, a subcommittee of the Discovery Committee. In relation to the Privilege Log Team, Mr. Irpino organized an eighteen-member team, played a primary role in devising the strategy for attacking Merck’s privilege claims, presided over weekly conference calls, coordinated the assignment of various projects, and reviewed and analyzed Merck’s privilege logs, the FDA privilege log, and third-party privilege logs. Mr. Irpino assisted in drafting and arguing motions and oppositions. He also handled hearings and meetings with the Court, the Special Master, and Merck in regard to de-privileged documents. Mr. Irpino oversaw the process and assisted in reviewing over 60,000 privilege log entries and 500,000 pages of de-privileged documents. In connection with the extensive privilege log battle, Mr. Irpino also drafted more than fifty briefs, letters, and memoranda. The positive results achieved by the Privilege Log Team were helpful to the overall success of the litigation. Mr. Irpino was also Chair of the Document Depository Committee. In that role, he assisted in the coordination of activities among the four MDL depositories and helped institute consistent procedures to ensure efficiency. In addition, he provided trial support and jury research in connection with the

Dedrick

MDL trial.

The Irpino Law Firm submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 2,920 hours, of which 2,863.25 hours were Mr. Irpino’s. Irpino Law Firm incurred $16,937.78 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $877,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $877,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the na

*803

ture of the work done by the Irpino Law Firm, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $877,000.

57) Jacobs Burns

No common benefit time was logged. The FAC recommended no award. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommendation. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Jacobs Burns, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

58) John Hornbeck

John Hornbeck was a member of the MDL Science Committee. Mr. Horn-beck participated in the preparation and depositions of Merck employees, including Drs. Eliav Barr, Dr. Gilbert Block, and Dr. Nic Braunstein, as well as in the preparation of plaintiffs’ experts such as Dr. Richard Kronmal and Dr. Lemuel Moye for deposition. Mr. Hornbeck reviewed scientific protocols, published scientific literature, as well as documents produced in the litigation to prepare plaintiff experts and cross-examine Merck witnesses. Mr. Hornbeck assisted with the deposition of Dr. Gregory Curfman, Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Mr. Hornbeck also assisted in the development of the general liability plan for the litigation. Mr. Hornbeck submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 1,390 hours.

The FAC recommended an award of $300,000. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $300,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by John Hornbeck, the attorney is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $300,000.

59) Johnson & Perkinson

Johnson & Perkinson submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 847 hours, of which 520.75 were devoted to pre-trial pleadings and motions and 326.25 to case assessment, development, and administration. Of the total hours submitted, 304 hours were partner hours. An affidavit in support of the petition for common benefit fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC. Johnson

&

Perkinson submitted $8,774.86 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $15,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $15,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Johnson & Perkinson, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $15,000.

60) Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison

Jones, Swanson, Huddell

&

Garrison (formerly Jones Verras & Freiberg) submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 841.5 hours, of which 587.25 hours were devoted to discovery. Lynn Swanson and Eberhard Garrison were members of the Science Committee (and various science subcommittees), the Discovery Committee, and the Privilege Log Team. Ms. Swanson and Mr. Garrison, along with other members of the firm, reviewed and coded documents, reviewed privilege logs, performed legal research, summarized depositions, assisted with drafting pleadings related to the privilege log project, and reviewed and coded scien

*804

tifie articles. The firm incurred $1,639.13 in common benefit costs.

The FAC recommended an award of $30,000. After the Special Master’s hearing, the FAC recommended an award of $350,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $350,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $350,000.

61) Ted Kanner Law Office

Ted Kanner submitted 6.75 common benefit hours. At the request of the PSC, Ted Kanner assisted with the filing of a class action in West Virginia.

The FAC recommended an award of $1,350. The attorney has indicated his acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $1,350.

Based on the attorney’s common benefit contribution and considering the nature of the work done, the attorney is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $1,350.

62) Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP

Kasowitz Benson’s contributions were made primarily in the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation. Members of the firm performed extensive, significant, and high-quality document review, reviewing custodial files for key witnesses such as Ray Gilmartin, former CEO of Merck. Members of the firm also played central roles in five mock trials which took place in preparation for the

Ernst, Cona/McDarby,

and

Hermans/Humeston

bellwether trials.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman submitted common benefit hours in the amount of 4,395.4 hours, of which 1,006.75 appear to be partner hours. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman incurred $47,471.72 in common benefit expenses.

The FAC recommended an award of $1,100,000. The firm has indicated its acceptance of that recommended amount. The Special Master recommended an award of $1,100,000.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $1,100,000.

63) Keller Rohrback

Keller Rohrback submitted a total of 323.00 common benefit hours. An Affidavit in support of the Petition for Common Benefit Fees was not received. A presentation on behalf of the firm was not made to the FAC.

The FAC recommended no award. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended no award.

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Keller Rohrback, the firm is awarded no common benefit fees.

64) Kerpsack

The Kerpsack firm submitted 54.5 common benefit hours. At the request of the PSC, the Kerpsack firm filed and monitored a statewide class action.

The FAC recommended an award of $10,000. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $10,000.

*805

Therefore, based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Kerpsack, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $10,000.

65) Khorrami Pollard & Abir

Khorrami Pollard performed work in the California Consolidated Litigation reviewing cases for selection for trial and preparing a case for trial. The firm documented 128.25 hours of attorney time. The firm did not submit hours to the Court-appointed CPA and was not included in the FAC’s January 20, 2011 proposed allocation.

Subsequently, the FAC revised its recommendation and suggested an award of $80,000 to the Khorrami firm. The firm did not file an objection or respond to that recommended amount or participate in the allocation proceedings. The Special Master recommended an award of $80,000.

Based upon the common benefit contributions and considering the nature of the work done by Khorrami Pollard, the firm is awarded common benefit fees in the amount of $30,000.

66) Kline & Specter

Tom Kline served as a member of the PSC and co-chair of the Trial Committee. Kline & Specter, after becoming involved in the Vioxx litigation in 2003, made significant contributions both in the MDL and the New Jersey Consolidated Litigation. Other members of the firm served on the Science Committee, the Discovery Committee, the Trial Package Committee and the Trial Selection Committee. Members of the firm engaged in factual discovery including the review of documents and the taking of depositions. Kline & Specter was also actively involved in legal research, briefing, drafting and argument of key issues; preparing deposition cuts; and developing legal and trial strategies. Members of the firm engaged in telephone and in-person conferences, expert preparation, medical and scientific research in support for bellwether trials.

Dr. Lisa Dagostino, J.D., committed extensive time to the litigation. Dr. Dagostino made substantial contributions to the PSC trial package and served on the Science Committee. Dr. Dagostino assisted with the common benefit Vioxx litigation effort on a full-time basis to the near exclusion of all other work until the settlement was announced. Kline & Specter also contributed to the MDL response to Merck’s preemption brief.

Tom Kline or a member of Kline & Specter took the depositions of the following Merck officers and scientists: Raymond Gilmartin (CEO), Edward Scolnick, M.D. (former president, Merck Research Laboratories), Peter Kim, M.D. (President, Merck Research Laboratories), Alise Reicin, M.D. (Senior Director), Allen Nies, M.D. (Senior VP, Clinical Sciences), David Anstice (President of U.S. Human Health), Peter DiBattise, M.D. (Merck Research Labs cardiologist), Barry Gertz, M.D., Ph.D (Executive Vice President), Joseph Lynch, Ph.D (Senior Director, Pharmacology), Kathleen Metters, Ph.D (Head of Basic Research, Merck Frosst), Thomas Simon, M.D. (Senior Director, Clinical Research) and Deborah Shapiro, Ph.D (Director of Clinical Biostatistics). Tom Kline also took the deposition testimony of Dr. Eric Topol, leading cardiologist formerly of the Cleveland Clinic; Dr. David Graham, Associate Director for Science and Medicine, Office of Dr

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.