With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See, e.g., Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1015 (7th Cir.1998); Skelton, 860 F.2d at 255. These factors include “the complexity of the legal issues involved, the degree of success obtained, and the public interest advanced by the litigation.” Gastineau, 592 F.3d at 748. When applying a multiplier to the base lodestar amount, courts should also consider the risk plaintiffs counsel assumes in recovering nothing. Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 945 F.2d 969, 975-76 (7th Cir. 1991) (remanding case for recalculation of attorneys’ fees because the trial court failed to award a risk multiplier) Typical multipliers awarded in comparable class action litigation average around 4, but are often much higher. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., No. 98-5055, 2004 WL 1221350, at *14 (E.D.Pa. Jun. 2, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Here, there is no need for a multiplier,

A: holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances
B: recognizing that from 2001 to 2003 the average multiplier approved in common fund eases was 435
C: recognizing that the acceptable range of fee awards is 20 to 50 of the common fund
D: recognizing common knowledge exception
B.