1 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Sean R. Matt (admitted pro hac vice) 2 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 3 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 4 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 sean@hbsslaw.com 5 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Ilya Trubnikov and 6 Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class
7 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER 8 & GROSSMANN LLP John Rizio-Hamilton (admitted pro hac vice) 9 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 10 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile:(212) 554-1444 11 johnr@blbglaw.com 12 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Roofers’ Pension 13 Fund and Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISION
17 No. 4:19-cv-07481-JST
18 IN RE PLANTRONICS, INC. SECURITIES [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING 19 LITIGATION ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES AS 20 MODIFIED
21 Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar Courtroom: 6 22 23
25 26 27 1 WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing on August 21, 2025 (the “Settlement 2 Hearing”) on Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of Litigation 3 Expenses. The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement Hearing and 4 otherwise; and it appearing that notice of the Settlement Hearing substantially in the form approved 5 by the Court was mailed to all Settlement Class Members who or which could be identified with 6 reasonable effort, and that a summary notice of the hearing substantially in the form approved by 7 the Court was published in The Wall Street Journal and was transmitted over the PR Newswire 8 pursuant to the specifications of the Court; and the Court having considered and determined the 9 fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses requested, 10 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 11 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and 12 Agreement of Settlement dated July 18, 2024 (ECF No. 230-1) (the “Stipulation”) and all terms 13 not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. 14 2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order and over the subject matter of the 15 Action and all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. 16 3. Notice of Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of 17 Litigation Expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified with 18 reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for an 19 award of attorneys’ fees and expenses satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules 20 of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)), 21 due process, and all other applicable law and rules, constituted the best notice practicable under 22 the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled 23 thereto. 24 4. “While attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded in a certified class action where 25 so authorized by law or the parties’ agreement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), courts have an independent 26 obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have 27 already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th 28 Cir. 2011). In carefully considering Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and 1 payment of Litigation Expenses, the Court has considered the reasonableness of the request in light 2 of percentage-of-the-common-fund awards in similar cases and additional factors including (1) the 3 results achieved, (2) the risks of litigation, (3) the skill required and the quality of work, (4) the 4 contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by Lead Counsel, (5) awards made in 5 similar cases, (6) the reaction of the Settlement Class, and (7) a lodestar cross-check. See Vizcaino 6 v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 5. Lead Counsel are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 22% of the 8 Settlement Fund, or $6,490,000 (plus interest earned on this amount at the same rate as the interest 9 earned on the Settlement Fund). Lead Counsel are also hereby awarded $593,198.12 for payment 10 of their litigation expenses. These attorneys’ fees and expenses, which the Court finds to be fair 11 and reasonable, shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. 12 6. Lead Counsel shall be paid 90% of the attorneys’ fees awarded ($5,841,000) and 13 100% of the approved expenses immediately upon entry of the Judgment approving the Settlement 14 and this Order. The remaining 10% of the attorneys’ fees awarded ($649,000) (and any interest 15 earned thereon) will be paid after the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to eligible claimants 16 is conducted and Lead Counsel file a post-distribution accounting. Lead Counsel shall file a 17 proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees when they file their post-distribution 18 accounting. 19 7. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to be paid 20 from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that: 21 a. The Settlement has created a Settlement Fund of $29,500,000 in cash, which 22 is an amount that is fair and reasonable, that has been funded into an interest-bearing 23 escrow account pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and that numerous Settlement 24 Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that 25 occurred because of the efforts of Lead Counsel; 26 b. Lead Counsel litigated this case on a purely contingent basis, and have not 27 received any compensation for their work on this matter over the last five years; 28 1 c. The award of attorneys’ fees amounts to less than the Ninth Circuit’s 25% 2 benchmark in percentage-of-recovery cases, see In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 3 779 F.3d 934, 949 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Under the percentage-of-recovery method, the 4 attorneys’ fees equal some percentage of the common settlement fund; in this circuit, the 5 benchmark percentage is 25%.”); 6 d. The requested fees have been reviewed and approved as reasonable by Lead 7 Plaintiffs, two sophisticated investors that actively supervised the Action; 8 e. Over 22,000 copies of the Notice were mailed to potential Settlement Class 9 Members and nominees stating that Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys’ fees in an 10 amount not to exceed 22% of the Settlement Fund and payment of Litigation Expenses in 11 an amount not to exceed $750,000, and no objections to the requested award of attorneys’ 12 fees or Litigation Expenses were submitted; 13 f. Lead Counsel, who have substantial experience in handling securities class 14 actions and the types of claims asserted herein, conducted the litigation and achieved the 15 Settlement, which is a favorable result for members of the Settlement Class, with skill, 16 perseverance, and diligent advocacy; 17 g. Had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would be a significant 18 risk that Lead Plaintiffs and the other members of the Settlement Class would have 19 recovered less or nothing from Defendants; 20 h. A lodestar cross-check supports the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees 21 requested and awarded. Lead Counsel devoted over 20,500 hours to the investigation and 22 prosecution of this Action, with a lodestar value of approximately $11.785 million through 23 July 19, 2024, see Joint Decl. ¶ 79, ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Sean R. Matt (admitted pro hac vice) 2 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 3 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 4 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 sean@hbsslaw.com 5 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Ilya Trubnikov and 6 Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class
7 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER 8 & GROSSMANN LLP John Rizio-Hamilton (admitted pro hac vice) 9 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 10 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile:(212) 554-1444 11 johnr@blbglaw.com 12 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Roofers’ Pension 13 Fund and Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISION
17 No. 4:19-cv-07481-JST
18 IN RE PLANTRONICS, INC. SECURITIES [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING 19 LITIGATION ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES AS 20 MODIFIED
21 Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar Courtroom: 6 22 23
25 26 27 1 WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing on August 21, 2025 (the “Settlement 2 Hearing”) on Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of Litigation 3 Expenses. The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement Hearing and 4 otherwise; and it appearing that notice of the Settlement Hearing substantially in the form approved 5 by the Court was mailed to all Settlement Class Members who or which could be identified with 6 reasonable effort, and that a summary notice of the hearing substantially in the form approved by 7 the Court was published in The Wall Street Journal and was transmitted over the PR Newswire 8 pursuant to the specifications of the Court; and the Court having considered and determined the 9 fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys’ fees and Litigation Expenses requested, 10 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 11 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and 12 Agreement of Settlement dated July 18, 2024 (ECF No. 230-1) (the “Stipulation”) and all terms 13 not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. 14 2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order and over the subject matter of the 15 Action and all parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. 16 3. Notice of Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and payment of 17 Litigation Expenses was given to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified with 18 reasonable effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for an 19 award of attorneys’ fees and expenses satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules 20 of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7)), 21 due process, and all other applicable law and rules, constituted the best notice practicable under 22 the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled 23 thereto. 24 4. “While attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded in a certified class action where 25 so authorized by law or the parties’ agreement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), courts have an independent 26 obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have 27 already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th 28 Cir. 2011). In carefully considering Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and 1 payment of Litigation Expenses, the Court has considered the reasonableness of the request in light 2 of percentage-of-the-common-fund awards in similar cases and additional factors including (1) the 3 results achieved, (2) the risks of litigation, (3) the skill required and the quality of work, (4) the 4 contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by Lead Counsel, (5) awards made in 5 similar cases, (6) the reaction of the Settlement Class, and (7) a lodestar cross-check. See Vizcaino 6 v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 5. Lead Counsel are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 22% of the 8 Settlement Fund, or $6,490,000 (plus interest earned on this amount at the same rate as the interest 9 earned on the Settlement Fund). Lead Counsel are also hereby awarded $593,198.12 for payment 10 of their litigation expenses. These attorneys’ fees and expenses, which the Court finds to be fair 11 and reasonable, shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. 12 6. Lead Counsel shall be paid 90% of the attorneys’ fees awarded ($5,841,000) and 13 100% of the approved expenses immediately upon entry of the Judgment approving the Settlement 14 and this Order. The remaining 10% of the attorneys’ fees awarded ($649,000) (and any interest 15 earned thereon) will be paid after the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to eligible claimants 16 is conducted and Lead Counsel file a post-distribution accounting. Lead Counsel shall file a 17 proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees when they file their post-distribution 18 accounting. 19 7. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to be paid 20 from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that: 21 a. The Settlement has created a Settlement Fund of $29,500,000 in cash, which 22 is an amount that is fair and reasonable, that has been funded into an interest-bearing 23 escrow account pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and that numerous Settlement 24 Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that 25 occurred because of the efforts of Lead Counsel; 26 b. Lead Counsel litigated this case on a purely contingent basis, and have not 27 received any compensation for their work on this matter over the last five years; 28 1 c. The award of attorneys’ fees amounts to less than the Ninth Circuit’s 25% 2 benchmark in percentage-of-recovery cases, see In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 3 779 F.3d 934, 949 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Under the percentage-of-recovery method, the 4 attorneys’ fees equal some percentage of the common settlement fund; in this circuit, the 5 benchmark percentage is 25%.”); 6 d. The requested fees have been reviewed and approved as reasonable by Lead 7 Plaintiffs, two sophisticated investors that actively supervised the Action; 8 e. Over 22,000 copies of the Notice were mailed to potential Settlement Class 9 Members and nominees stating that Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys’ fees in an 10 amount not to exceed 22% of the Settlement Fund and payment of Litigation Expenses in 11 an amount not to exceed $750,000, and no objections to the requested award of attorneys’ 12 fees or Litigation Expenses were submitted; 13 f. Lead Counsel, who have substantial experience in handling securities class 14 actions and the types of claims asserted herein, conducted the litigation and achieved the 15 Settlement, which is a favorable result for members of the Settlement Class, with skill, 16 perseverance, and diligent advocacy; 17 g. Had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would be a significant 18 risk that Lead Plaintiffs and the other members of the Settlement Class would have 19 recovered less or nothing from Defendants; 20 h. A lodestar cross-check supports the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees 21 requested and awarded. Lead Counsel devoted over 20,500 hours to the investigation and 22 prosecution of this Action, with a lodestar value of approximately $11.785 million through 23 July 19, 2024, see Joint Decl. ¶ 79, ECF No. 243, and will continue to perform work on 24 behalf of the Settlement Class in overseeing the Claims Administrator’s processing of 25 claims received and the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. The attorneys’ fees 26 requested and awarded represent a multiplier of .55 of Lead Counsel’s lodestar of 27 approximately $11.785 million, which is below the range of multipliers typically awarded 28 in similar cases and supports the reasonableness of the fees requested and awarded, see 1 Davis v. Yelp, Inc., No. 18-CV-00400-EMC, 2023 WL 3063823, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2 2023) (noting that “an upwards fee multiplier” is “commonplace in complex class actions” 3 and that “a multiplier of less than one suggests that the negotiated fee award is reasonable”) 4 (collecting cases); 5 i. The attorneys’ fees awarded to be paid from the Settlement Fund are fair 6 and reasonable and consistent with awards in similar cases. See, e.g., In re QuantumScape 7 Sec. Class Action, Case No. 21-cv-00058-WHO, 2025 WL 353556, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8 22, 2025) (awarding 30% of $47.5 million settlement); Fleming v. Impax Lab’ys Inc., Case 9 No. 16-cv-6557-HSG, 2022 WL 2789496, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) (awarding 30% 10 of $33 million settlement). 1] 8. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court’s approval regarding any 12 || attorneys’ fees and expense application shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the 13 || Judgment. 14 9. Exclusive jurisdiction is hereby retained over the parties and the Settlement Class 15 Members for all matters relating to this Action, including the administration, interpretation, 16 || effectuation, or enforcement of the Stipulation and this Order. 17 10. In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the Settlement 18 || otherwise fails to occur, this Order shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by the 19 || Stipulation. 20 11. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order, and immediate entry by 21 || the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. 22 12. This order terminates ECF No. 242. 23 SO ORDERED this 25" day of August, 2025. 24 . 25 26 pr Honorable iy igar United States District Judge 27 28 ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□