ANCHORAGE - Fishermen in a lengthy lawsuit over price fixing in the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery will share less than $10 million of $40 million in out-of-court settlements, a judge ruled Feb. 5.
The plan approved by Superior Court Judge Peter A. Michalski awarded $16.4 million to the plaintiffs' legal defense for out-of-pocket costs and attorney fees and $13.8 million to reimburse defendant processors and Japanese importers for legal costs.
That left just under $10 million to be shared by nearly 4,700 Bristol Bay sockeye salmon permit holders, on the basis of harvest poundage from 1991 to 1995.
The four-month trial in Anchorage Superior Court failed to persuade jurors that processors and importers engaged in price fixing in their purchases of raw sockeye salmon from fishermen.
| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Fishermen had sought in excess of $1 billion in damages.
"It was a fair and reasonable judgment, based on the facts that he (Michalski) had in front of him and the laws that the Supreme Court of Alaska has set down," said Fred Furth, a San Francisco lawyer on the team representing the fishermen.
Jeff Feldman, a lawyer for Trident Seafoods, one of the processors, refused to comment the day of the ruling.
Objectors had 30 days to file an appeal.
The state of Alaska had filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that plaintiffs' attorneys, who lost the case, were not entitled to receive millions of dollars to cover their expenses.
"I believe the fees should be shared by those who have been hurt by this exercise in poor judgment, namely the fishermen and the processors," Gov. Frank Murkowski said in November.
"This lawsuit has had a devastating impact on our markets, particularly in Japan. It will take a significant, concentrated effort to rebuild what has been lost."
Jurors took about six hours May 23 to decide there was no conspiracy by salmon processors and Japanese importers to control prices paid to Bristol Bay fishermen nearly a decade ago.
"There was not solid enough evidence," jury foreman Michael Nourse said then. "It was so circumstantial. It was too circumstantial. There wasn't a smoking gun. There wasn't even a smoldering gun. We were looking for a smoking gun."
