Lawyers in JetBlue-Spirit merger case lose bid for fees
Adds comments from Joseph Alioto in paragraphs 5 and 6
By David Thomas
Sept 5 (Reuters) -A federal judge in Boston on Thursday rejected a request for up to $34.1 million in legal fees by a group of private antitrust lawyers who sued to stop the proposed $3.8 billion merger between JetBlue Airways JBLU.O and Spirit Airlines SAVE.N.
U.S. District Judge William Young denied the fee request in a brief electric order.
"The plaintiff's motion is denied because in no sense were any of the plaintiffs a 'prevailing party' in this action," Young wrote.
The airlines abandoned their merger in March after Young sided with the U.S. Department of Justice in a separate government case challenging the deal, ruling that it would harm consumers.
One of the lawyers who sought the fees, Joseph Alioto of the Alioto Law Firm in San Francisco, said Young relied on the wrong statute in rejecting their request.
"Private plaintiffs are encouraged to bring these suits, and this minute order says, 'Don't bother,'" Alioto said. He said he will be filing a motion asking Young to set his ruling aside and have a hearing on the merits of their fee request.
Spokespersons for JetBlue and Spirit did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The airlines were represented by attorneys from Cooley and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
The airlines had opposed the fee request and accused the private lawyers of piggy-backing on the government's case.
After the airlines dropped the merger, the private lawsuit was dismissed as moot, a fact the airlines pointed to in their opposition papers filed last month.
"They did not try this case. They did not win at summary judgment," the airlines said.
Alioto told Reuters last month that he believed the private lawsuit is what led the airlines to abandon the merger altogether, rather than proceeding with an appeal in the government's case.
He accused the airlines of trying to undermine the federal law underpinning private antitrust litigation by challenging the attorneys' right to seek fees.
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
