The Company believes that the transaction agreement brings to an end the DOJ`s review of RehabCare, which was previously described in its periodic notifications to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The transaction agreement was approved by the DOJ and the Ministry of Health and Human Services (OIG) General Inspectorate. As part of the comparison, the company also entered into a corporate integrity agreement with oIG on the provision of contract rehabilitation therapy services. Because this case is based on the jurisdiction of the federal issue (doc. 1 to 1), federal law regulates the award of legal fees. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9. Cir. 2002) (“Since the Washington Act regulates the debt, it also regulates the allocation of royalties”); See also Fern M. Smith, Moore`s Federal Practice Civil No. 54.171 (2015) (“In cases under the federal jurisdiction of district courts, state royalty deferral laws are generally not applicable.”) “Under the ninth arrondissement law, the district court has the power, in general fund cases, to choose either the percentage of the fund or the Lodestar method” for the award of legal fees.
Vizcaino, 290 F.3d around 1047. The ninth circle generally set a benchmark of 25 per cent for the allocation of legal fees in current fund cases. Id. at 1047-48; See also In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d to 942 (“C] our generally calculates 25% of the fund as a “benchmark” for appropriate pricing, which provides an appropriate explanation for all “special circumstances” justifying an exit. Reasons for a difference in the appreciation of the reference premium can be found when the consultant achieves exceptional results for the class, engages in “extremely risky” litigation, generates benefits for the class that exceeds the liquid resolution fund, or treats the case on a possible basis. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d to 1048-50; See also In re Online DVD-Rental, 779 F.3d at 954-55. But at the end of the day, “the choice of benchmark or another sentence must be supported by findings that take into account all the circumstances of the case.” Vizcaino, 290 F.3d around 1048. The Ninth Arrondissement authorized the use of Lodestar audit controls to determine the adequacy of a certain percentage of a common fund recovery. Id. to 1050 (“If such an investment is minimal, as in the case of early billing, Lodestar`s calculation can convince a court that a lower percentage is reasonable. Similarly, Lodestar`s calculation can be useful when it comes to proposing a higher percentage in the event of a dispute. See also In re Online DVD-Rental, 779 F.3d to 955.