Read US ex rel. Bogart v. King Pharm., 06-2098

In qui tam litigation brought against pharmaceutical companies, a district court's ruling rejecting plaintiff's claim for additional attorney's fees following certain settlements is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless contentions that he was entitled to be paid up to one-third of those settlements' total as attorney's fees under a common fund theory of recovery.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/08/2007
• Decided 07/16/2007
• Published 07/16/2007

Judges

• Before:  RENDELL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE, District Judge.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Samuel L. Boyd, Boyd & Associates, Dallas, TX, Carl A. Solano [Argued], Jennifer J. Nestle, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, Timothy K. Lewis, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Washington, DC, Joel M. Androphy, Berg & Androphy, Houston, TX, Counsel for Appellant Edward Bogart.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michael T. Reynolds [Argued], Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY, John G. Harkins, Jr., Eleanor M. Illoway, David W. Angstrom, Harkins Cunningham, Philadelphia, PA, Counsel for Appellees King Pharmaceuticals;  Monarch Pharmaceuticals., Guy W. Horsley, Jr. [Argued], Office of Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, Counsel for Appellee State of Virginia.