Candelore v. LDK Solar Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 512

ORDER RE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH TO CLASS NOTICE. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 23, 2010. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN RE LDK SOLAR SECURITIES LITIGATION. / This Document Relates to: All Actions. / No. C 07-05182 WHA ORDER RE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH TO CLASS NOTICE On February 16, 2010, preliminary approval of a proposed settlement was granted in this securities fraud class action alleging inventory and accounting irregularities at defendant LDK Solar Co., Ltd. The proposed form of notice was approved with the addition of a summary paragraph to begin on the first page. Counsel was invited to propose edits to the paragraph to improve its accuracy. After consideration of counsels' proposed edits, this order adopts the following paragraph to be inserted at the beginning of the notice to be bolded as follows: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT You are a class member whose rights will be extinguished by a proposed settlement and your views as to its fairness are requested by the federal court. It would settle all shareholder claims for American Depository Shares ("ADS") of LDK Solar Co., Ltd., and for put and call options on those shares, purchased from June 1, 2007, through October 7, 2007. The lead plaintiff claims the class should recover up to $293 million if the case is tried but proposes to settle for $16 million due to problems of proof and collectibility. From this, class counsel would seek up to $2.4 million in attorney's fees, $3.1 million in expenses and $250,000 in administrative costs, for a total deduction of $5.75 million, leaving $10.25 million to be divided among class members. The average check per investor would be in the range of $500, although some checks would be less and some more. The release which is part of the settlement would bar all future claims by class members of the type asserted but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 would not bar a derivative action still pending in state court, described below. The Court invites the views of all class members on the fairness of the proposed settlement. If you wish, you may opt out of the settlement and bring your own suit, all as described below. In all other respects, the February 17 order granting preliminary approval of settlement remains in effect. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?