Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-00536
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc., Judge Torres approved a revised settlement and terminated the action with prejudice.
Daniel Barthole, Forte Capital Group Inc., National Securities Corporation, and the similarly situated people on whose behalf Barthole sued.
What happened
In Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to approve a settlement in an action brought by Daniel Barthole individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The court had previously declined to approve the original agreement because too much of the settlement proceeds went to attorneys’ fees.
The parties submitted a revised agreement that was otherwise identical but reduced attorneys’ fees to one-third of the total recovery. The court found that percentage permissible and concluded that the revised settlement was fair and reasonable.
Judge Analisa Torres approved the revised settlement and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Barthole v. Forte Capital Group Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00536
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 28, 2021
Background
Daniel Barthole sued Forte Capital Group Inc. and National Securities Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On December 21, 2020, the parties jointly moved for approval of a settlement agreement.
On April 19, 2021, the Court declined to approve the original settlement because of the high proportion of the recovery allocated to attorneys’ fees. The Court directed the parties to submit a revised agreement with a smaller percentage allocated to fees.
Court’s ruling
The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement. The Court stated that it was identical to the original agreement except that it reduced the attorneys’ fees to one-third of the total recovery amount. The Court found that this amount was within the permissible range for attorneys’ fees and held that the revised settlement was fair and reasonable. The revised settlement was approved.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.