The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chin, District Judge.
On November 22, 2000, I issued an Opinion in this case finding
that defendant and third-party plaintiff John Hancock Mutual Life
Insurance Co. ("Hancock") had breached its fiduciary duties to
the Sperry Rand Master Retirement Trust No. 2 (and its successor,
the Unisys Master Trust) (together, the "Trust") under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. See Harris Trust & Sav. Bank
v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp.2d 444 (S.D.N Y
In the Opinion, I directed plaintiffs to submit a proposed
judgment together with an affidavit setting forth interest
calculations as well as an application for attorneys' fees and
costs. 122 F. Supp.2d at 466. In this seemingly never-ending case,
that direction triggered the filing of four proposed judgments, a
set of objections to the first proposed judgment together with a
response thereto as well as a surreply, two motions for an order
amending the Court's findings of fact, six memoranda of law,
twenty affidavits (or declarations), numerous exhibits, and a
request by Hancock for the appointment of a special master or
magistrate judge to conduct further proceedings in this
seventeen-year old case.
The following issues are presented: (1) the amount of damages
awarded for Hancock's failure to release excess funds; (2)
prejudgment interest on the award of damages for Hancock's
failure to release excess funds; (3) the amount of damages
awarded with respect to the allocation and excess risk charge
claims; (4) prejudgment interest on the damages awarded with
respect to the allocation and excess risk charge claims; (5) the
amount to be awarded for attorneys' fees; (6) the amount to be
awarded for costs, including expert witness fees; (7) prejudgment
interest on any award of attorneys' fees and costs; and (8)
equitable relief. I address each issue in turn.
1. Damages for Failure to Release Excess Funds
In the Opinion, I awarded damages to the Trust for Hancock's
failure to release excess funds based on Professor Ibbotson's use
of the actual overall Sperry Trust case rate. Hancock argues that
was error because Professor Ibbotson should have used the "new
money" rate rather than the case rate. Hancock further argues
that "[i]n the end," Professor Ibbotson, Mr. Annin, and Dr.
Babbel (Hancock's expert) "agreed that the proper measure of what
the rollout amounts earned in GAC 50 was the new money rate."
(Def. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Am. Findings of Fact at 6).
Hancock's argument is disingenuous and is based on a
mischaracterization of the testimony. Mr. Annin did not testify
"[i]n the end" that the proper measure was the new money rate.
Rather, Mr. Annin testified solely as a rebuttal witness to lay a
foundation for the admission of a chart that provided an
alternative theory of damages that the Trust was relying on only
if Dr. Babble's analysis were accepted. (See Tr. at 1830, 1834,
1905, 1908, 1913, 1916, 1927-28). During Mr. Annin's testimony,
the following exchange occurred:
MS. KRAMER: . . . He was instructed to run this model
based on the admissions made by Dr. Babbel during his
MR. PEAK: Yes, and I would like to know how it
corrects for something Dr. Babbel said.
THE COURT: Tell me what the instructions were with
respect to these last two pages.
THE WITNESS: I really have no qualifications as to
liabilities. We were told to calculate the model
using this new liability stream.
Q. So you are not here to testify as to the quantum
of liability. All you are doing for us is the math.
(Tr. at 1927-28). In fact, as I did not accept Dr. Babbel's
analysis, Mr. Annin's testimony as well as Exhibit 1280 are
irrelevant. Likewise, Professor Ibbotson did not admit any error
in his analysis and he did not adopt Dr. Babbel's analysis.
(See, e.g., Tr. at 1189-90).
This aspect of Hancock's motion for an order amending the
Court's findings of fact is denied.
2. Interest on Damages for Failure to Release Funds
Hancock objects to the use of the Sperry Trust rate of return
to calculate prejudgment interest on damages for Hancock's
failure to release funds for the period after July 1, 1997 on the
technical grounds that the Trust did not submit "any admissible,
competent evidence with respect to the [Trust's] rate of return
for that time period." (Def. Obj. at 24).*fn1 The objection is
overruled. The Opinion did not direct the Trust to submit such
documentation and I am satisfied that Mr. Annin had sufficient
information to make the calculations. Moreover, in response to
Hancock's objection, the Trust has now submitted the
3. Damages for Allocation/Excess Risk Charge Claims
The parties apparently agree that the award of $5,724,528 in
damages for the allocation and excess risk charge claims should
be reduced because the Court's denial of the scaling claim
affected the damages calculations. The parties' motions for an
order amending the Court's findings of fact are granted to the
extent that the damages awarded ...