In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation

Filing 100

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE. Final Approval Hearing for 9/26/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/17/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/17/2013: #1 Exhibit A) (cl, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/17/2013 (cl, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

In re ORACLE CORPORATION DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION

13
14

SCOTT OZAKI, derivatively and on behalf of
ORACLE CORPORATION,

15

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17
18
19
20

LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, SAFRA A. CATZ,
JEFFREY O. HENLEY, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN,
H. RAYMOND BINGHAM, DONALD L.
LUCAS, JEFFREY S. BERG, BRUCE R.
CHIZEN, HECTOR GARCIA-MOLINA, NAOMI
O. SELIGMAN, and GEORGE H. CONRADES,

21
22
23

Defendants,
-andORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation,

24
25

Nominal Defendant.

26
27
28
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

Master File No. C-10-03392-RS;
Case No. C 11-04493-RS
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

TO:

2
3

ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF
COMMON STOCK OF ORACLE CORPORATION (“ORACLE” OR THE
“COMPANY”) AS OF _______ __, 2013 (date of preliminary approval)
(“CURRENT ORACLE SHAREHOLDERS”).
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS
NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF
THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, AND
CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF
THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER
BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS.

4
5
6
7
8
9

13

IF YOU HOLD ORACLE COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS NOTICE TO SUCH
BENEFICIAL OWNER. THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR
DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THESE ACTIONS. THE
RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO
THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

14

Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the “Settlement”) of two

10
11
12

15

shareholder derivative actions: (1) In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File

16

No. C-10-03392-RS (N.D. Cal.); and (2) Ozaki v. Ellison, et al., Case No. C 11-04493-RS (N.D.

17

Cal.) (collectively, the “Derivative Actions”). This Notice is provided to you by Order of the

18

United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”). It is not an

19

expression of any opinion by the Federal Court. The purpose of this Notice is to notify you of the

20

terms of the proposed Settlement, and of your rights related thereto.

21

I.

22

WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
Your rights may be affected by the settlement of the Derivative Actions. The plaintiffs in

23

those actions (Lisa Galaviz, Philip T. Prince, and Scott Ozaki (collectively referred to as the

24

“Plaintiffs”)), defendants Jeffrey S. Berg, H. Raymond Bingham, Michael J. Boskin, Safra A.

25

Catz, Bruce R. Chizen, George H. Conrades, Lawrence J. Ellison, Hector Garcia-Molina, Jeffrey

26

O. Henley, Donald L. Lucas, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., and Naomi O. Seligman (collectively

27

referred to as the “Individual Defendants”), and nominal defendant Oracle (Oracle and the

28
1
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

Individual Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Defendants”) have agreed upon terms to

2

settle the Derivative Actions and have signed a written Stipulation of Settlement (the

3

“Stipulation”) setting forth those settlement terms.

4

On ________ __, 2013, at ___ _.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the “Settlement

5

Hearing”) in the Derivative Actions. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine:

6

(i) whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved;

7

(ii) whether final judgments should be entered; and (iii) such other matters as may be necessary or

8

proper under the circumstances.

9

II.

10
11
12

SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION
A.

Procedural Overview
(i)

The Consolidated Action

On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff Lisa Galaviz filed a derivative complaint in the United States

13

District Court for the Northern District of California against Oracle (as a nominal defendant) and

14

certain of Oracle’s current and former officers and directors. On August 19, 2010, Plaintiff Philip

15

T. Prince filed a similar derivative complaint in the San Mateo Superior Court, which Defendants

16

removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On

17

February 8, 2011, the actions brought by Ms. Galaviz and Mr. Prince were ordered consolidated

18

for all purposes (the “Consolidated Action”). On February 10, 2011, the plaintiffs in the

19

Consolidated Action filed a consolidated complaint alleging the following claims for relief:

20

breach of fiduciary duty; abuse of control; and unjust enrichment based on violations of the False

21

Claims Act by Oracle.

22

On March 31, 2011, Oracle filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action on the

23

ground that plaintiffs had failed to plead particularized facts demonstrating that they were

24

excused from making a demand upon Oracle’s Board of Directors to act on their allegations,

25

which was heard on June 2, 2011. The individual defendants in the Consolidated Action also

26

moved to dismiss that Action for failure to state a claim.

27

On September 12, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a petition for a writ

28

of mandate in the California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo. The petition sought an
2
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

order under California Corporations Code Section 1601 compelling Oracle to allow inspection of

2

12 categories of documents. The stated purposes of the petition were to assist the plaintiffs in the

3

Consolidated Action in pleading demand futility, and to assist them in investigating the

4

allegations raised in that action.

5

On November 9, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Oracle’s motion to dismiss the

6

Consolidated Action with leave to amend. The order held that, to demonstrate that demand would

7

have been futile, any amended complaint would have to plead particularized facts showing that

8

“the [Oracle] directors knew of, or recklessly disregarded” information showing that “Oracle was

9

engaged in the alleged wrongdoing.” The Court also dismissed the Consolidated Action with

10

leave to amend on the independent ground that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they had

11

been Oracle shareholders at the time of the alleged wrongful acts and that they retained ownership

12

for the duration of the lawsuit.

13
14
15

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action have not yet filed an amended complaint. The
action has been stayed pending settlement negotiations pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
On December 12, 2011, the trial court in the Section 1601 Action entered final judgment

16

allowing the document inspection sought by the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Oracle has

17

appealed that judgment and filed its opening brief on December 28, 2012. No hearing date has

18

been scheduled.

19
20

(ii)

The Ozaki Action

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff Scott Ozaki filed a derivative action (the “Ozaki Action”)

21

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against some of the

22

same defendants named in the Consolidated Action. Mr. Ozaki’s complaint asserted the

23

following claims for relief: breach of fiduciary duty; waste of corporate assets; and unjust

24

enrichment arising from allegations similar to those in the Consolidated Action. On April 9,

25

2012, the Ozaki Action was stayed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation pending settlement

26

negotiations.

27
28
3
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

(iii)

2

The Dismissed Delaware Action

On March 22, 2011, Plaintiff Jordan Weinrib filed a derivative action in the Court of

3

Chancery for the State of Delaware. That action was entitled Weinrib v. Ellison, et al., Case No.

4

7350 (Del. Ch.) (the “Delaware Action”). Mr. Weinrib alleged claims for breach of fiduciary

5

duty based on allegations similar to those in the Consolidated Action. Mr. Weinrib voluntarily

6

dismissed his complaint without prejudice in April 2012, and the Delaware Action is no longer

7

pending.

8

B.

9

The parties in the Consolidated Action and the Ozaki Action agreed to stay those actions

10

to facilitate settlement discussions. Those discussions began with a formal mediation on June 5,

11

2012, supervised by the Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.). Between June 2012 and December

12

2012, the parties continued their settlement discussions, including further telephonic conferences

13

with Judge Tevrizian and face-to-face and telephonic meetings between counsel.

14

Settlement Negotiations

Substantially in response to those discussions, and as set forth in further detail below,

15

Oracle has agreed to institute or maintain corporate governance provisions governing its internal

16

controls and systems regarding compliance with the False Claims Act and with regulations

17

promulgated by the General Services Administration regarding pricing for software licensed and

18

services provided to government agencies. After negotiating and reaching agreement on the

19

corporate governance provisions, the parties then subsequently began negotiations about the

20

payment of Derivative Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees and reimbursement of expenses. After

21

discussions with Judge Tevrizian and counsel, the parties eventually reached an agreement,

22

subject to Court approval, on payment to Derivative Plaintiffs’ counsel for fees and expenses.

23

The Settling Parties believe that a settlement at this juncture on the terms and conditions

24

set forth herein is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of Oracle and its

25

shareholders.

26

III.

27
28

TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The principal terms, conditions, and other matters that are part of the Settlement, which

are subject to approval by the Court, are summarized below. This summary should be read in
4
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which

2

has been filed with the Court and is available for public inspection. To fully, finally, and forever

3

resolve the Derivative Actions, and following extensive, arm’s-length settlement negotiations, the

4

parties have agreed as set forth in the Stipulation as follows:

5

1.

Oracle will continue or will implement certain corporate governance measures at

6

the Company, which include internal controls and procedures specifically relating to the

7

allegations raised in the Derivative Actions, including compliance with the False Claims Act and

8

with regulations promulgated by the General Services Administration (the “Corporate

9

Governance Measures”) regarding pricing for software licensed and services provided to

10

government agencies. Oracle and the Individual Defendants acknowledge that the

11

implementation or continuation of these measures confers a benefit to the Company and is

12

substantially in response to the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Derivative Actions.

13

2.

The Stipulation also provides for the entry of judgments dismissing the Derivative

14

Actions against Oracle and the Individual Defendants with prejudice and, as explained in more

15

detail in the Stipulation, barring and releasing certain known or unknown claims that have been or

16

could have been brought in any court by the Plaintiffs, by Oracle, or by any of it shareholders,

17

against Oracle and the Individual Defendants relating to any of the claims or matters that were or

18

could have been alleged or asserted in any of the pleadings or papers filed in the Derivative

19

Actions. The Stipulation further provides that the entry of Judgments will bar and release any

20

known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought in any court by the

21

Defendants against Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel related to any of the claims or matters that

22

were or could have been alleged or asserted in any of the pleadings or papers filed in the

23

Derivative Actions or based upon or arising out of the institution, prosecution, assertion,

24

settlement, or resolution of the Derivative Actions.

25

IV.

26

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
After negotiating the substance of the Corporate Governance Measures described above,

27

the parties engaged in arm’s-length negotiations regarding the attorneys’ fees and expenses of

28

Plaintiffs’ counsel. As a result of these negotiations, the parties have agreed that, subject to court
5
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

determination, the Company will pay or cause to be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and

2

expenses in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,900,000 (the “Fee Award”), for both of the

3

Derivative Actions and for the Delaware Action. The Fee Award includes fees and expenses

4

incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the Derivative Actions and the Delaware

5

Action. To date, Plaintiffs’ counsel have not received any payment for their efforts in those

6

actions. The Fee Award will compensate Plaintiffs’ counsel for the results achieved in the

7

Derivative Actions and the Delaware Action, and for undertaking the prosecution of those actions

8

on a contingent basis.

9

V.

10
11

REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
Counsel for the parties believe that Settlement is in the best interests of Oracle and the

Current Oracle Shareholders.

12

A.

13

Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted an extensive investigation relating to the claims and the

Why Did the Plaintiffs Agree to Settle?

14

underlying events and transactions alleged in the Derivative Actions. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have

15

analyzed the evidence adduced during their investigation, and have researched the applicable law

16

with respect to the potential claims of Plaintiffs, Oracle, and Current Oracle Shareholders against

17

the Defendants, as well as the potential defenses thereto.

18

Based upon the investigation and analysis described above, Plaintiffs and their counsel

19

have concluded that the terms and conditions of the Stipulation are fair, reasonable, and adequate

20

to Plaintiffs, Oracle, and Current Oracle Shareholders, and in their best interests, and have agreed

21

to settle the claims raised in the Derivative Actions pursuant to the terms and provisions of the

22

Stipulation after considering, among other things: (i) the substantial benefits that Oracle and

23

Current Oracle Shareholders have received or will receive from the Settlement; (ii) the attendant

24

risks of continued litigation of the Derivative Actions; and (iii) the desirability of permitting the

25

Settlement to be consummated.

26

In particular, Plaintiffs and their counsel considered the significant litigation risk inherent

27

in the Derivative Actions. The law imposes significant burdens on plaintiffs for pleading and

28

proving a shareholder derivative claim. While Plaintiffs believe their claims are meritorious,
6
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

Plaintiffs acknowledge that there is a substantial risk that the Derivative Actions may not succeed

2

in producing a recovery in light of the applicable legal standards and possible defenses. In fact,

3

the Court previously granted Oracle’s motion to dismiss the complaint in one of the Derivative

4

Actions (with leave to amend), and there existed the possibility that, upon the Defendants’

5

motion, the Court would dismiss with prejudice any amended complaint. Plaintiffs and their

6

counsel believe that, under the circumstances, they have obtained the best possible relief for

7

Oracle and for Current Oracle Shareholders.

8

B.

9

The Defendants have strenuously denied and continue to deny each and every allegation

10

of wrongdoing or liability that has been made against them or that could have been made against

11

them in the Derivative Actions. The Defendants have further asserted that, at all times, they acted

12

in good faith, and in a manner that they reasonably believed to be and that was in the best

13

interests of Oracle and Current Oracle Shareholders. The Defendants assert that they have

14

meritorious defenses to the claims in the Derivative Actions, and that judgment should be entered

15

dismissing all claims against them with prejudice. Nonetheless, the Defendants have entered into

16

the Stipulation solely to avoid the continuing additional expense, inconvenience, and distraction

17

of this burdensome litigation and to avoid the potential risks inherent in any lawsuit, and without

18

admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.

19

VI.

20

Why Did the Defendants Agree to Settle?

FINAL COURT HEARING REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT
On ________ __, 2013, at ____ _.m., the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing at the

21

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal

22

Building and United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. At

23

the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether the terms of the Settlement are fair,

24

reasonable, and adequate and thus should be finally approved and whether the Derivative Actions

25

should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation.

26

VII.

27
28

YOUR RIGHT TO ATTEND THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
Any Current Oracle Shareholder may, but is not required to, appear in person at the

Settlement Hearing. Current Oracle Shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do
7
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

not need to appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action. If you want to be heard

2

at the Settlement Hearing, then you must comply with the procedures for objecting, which are set

3

forth below.

4

The Court has the right to change the date or time of the Settlement Hearing without

5

further notice. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the

6

date and time before going to the Court.

7

VIII. YOUR RIGHT TO OBJECT AND PROCEDURES FOR DOING SO

8
9
10

You have the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement. You must object in writing,
and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you
must comply with the following procedures.

11

A.

12

Any objections must be submitted in writing and must contain the following information:

13

1.

your name, legal address, and telephone number;

14

2.

proof of your being a Current Oracle Shareholder as of _______ __, 2013 (date of

15

You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing

preliminary approval);

16

3.

the date(s) that you acquired your Oracle shares;

17

4.

a detailed statement of your specific position with respect to the matters to be

18

heard at the Settlement Hearing, including a statement of each objection being made;

19
20
21
22
23

5.

the grounds for each objection or the reasons for your desiring to appear and to be

6.

notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (this is not

heard;

required if you have lodged your objection with the Court; and
7.

copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of

24

any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their

25

testimony.

26
27

The Court will not consider any objection that does not substantially comply with the
above requirements.

28
8
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

B.

2
3

You Must Timely Deliver Written Objections to the Court, Plaintiffs’
Counsel, and Defendants’ Counsel

YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE
COURT NO LATER THAN __________ __, 2013. The Clerk’s address is:

4
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

5
6
7
8

YOU MUST ALSO DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

9

AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN ________

10

__, 2013. Counsel’s addresses are:

11

13

Mark C. Molumphy
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010

14

Counsel for Plaintiffs

12

15
Jordan Eth
Philip T. Besirof
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

16
17
18

Counsel for Nominal Defendant Oracle and the Individual
Defendants

19

The Court will not consider any objection that is not timely filed with the Court or not

20
21

timely delivered to Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel. Any Person or entity who fails to

22

object or otherwise request to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have

23

waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement (including the right to appeal) or to

24

request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, and will be forever barred from raising such

25

objection or request in this or any other related action or proceeding.

26

IX.

27
28

HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the Stipulation

or of the events in the Derivative Actions. You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers filed
9
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Derivative Notice for Posting on Oracle’s Website and Filing with the Court]

1

in the Derivative Actions at the United States District Clerk’s office at any time during regular

2

business hours of each business day. The Clerk’s office is located at the Phillip Burton Federal

3

Building and United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

4

However, you must appear in person to inspect those documents. The Clerk’s office will not mail

5

copies to you. You may also contact a representative of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mark C. Molumphy,

6

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite

7

200, Burlingame, CA 94010, telephone [phone].

8

PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT

9

THIS NOTICE, THE SETTLEMENT, OR THE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS TO EITHER THE

10

COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE. Any questions you have about matters in this Notice

11

should be directed by telephone or in writing to Plaintiffs’ counsel, at the address set forth above.

12
13
14
15

DATED: ________________, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Abridged Derivative Notice for Publication in Investor’s Business Daily]

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3

In re ORACLE CORPORATION DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION

4
5
6

SCOTT OZAKI, derivatively and on behalf of
ORACLE CORPORATION,

Master File No. C-10-03392-RS;
Case No. C 11-04493-RS

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8
9
10
11

LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, SAFRA A. CATZ,
JEFFREY O. HENLEY, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN,
H. RAYMOND BINGHAM, DONALD L.
LUCAS, JEFFREY S. BERG, BRUCE R.
CHIZEN, HECTOR GARCIA-MOLINA, NAOMI
O. SELIGMAN, and GEORGE H. CONRADES,

12
13
14
15

Defendants,
-andORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation,

16

Nominal Defendant.

17
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

18
19
20
21
22

TO:

ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON
STOCK OF ORACLE CORPORATION (“ORACLE” OR THE “COMPANY”) AS OF
_______ __, 2013 (date of preliminary approval) (“CURRENT ORACLE
SHAREHOLDERS”).
This notice relates to a proposed settlement and dismissal of the above-captioned

23

shareholder derivative actions (the “Derivative Actions”), which were brought on behalf of

24

Oracle, and contains important information regarding your rights. Your rights may be affected by

25

these legal proceedings. If the Court approves the settlement as set forth in a Stipulation of

26

Settlement (“Stipulation”), you will be forever barred from contesting the approval of the

27
28
1
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Abridged Derivative Notice for Publication in Investor’s Business Daily]

1

proposed settlement and from pursuing the released claims. The proposed settlement does not

2

provide for monetary recovery. Accordingly, there is no claim form.

3

A hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement of the claims that were asserted

4

by Derivative Plaintiffs on behalf of Oracle, against certain directors and officers of Oracle

5

should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate will be held on _______ ___,

6

2013, at ___ _.m. before the Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge, at the

7

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal

8

Building and United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. At

9

the hearing, the Court will also consider whether to enter a judgment dismissing all claims in the

10

litigation with prejudice, forever discharging and settling certain released claims, whether to

11

approve Derivative Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees and expenses, and any other matters that may be

12

properly before the Court in connection with the Stipulation and proposed settlement.

13

THIS NOTICE IS A SUMMARY ONLY AND DOES NOT DESCRIBE ALL THE

14

DETAILS OF THE STIPULATION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. Nothing in this notice

15

varies or supersedes the terms of the Stipulation. For full details of the matters discussed in this

16

summary, you may review the Stipulation filed with the Court or a more detailed notice regarding

17

the terms of the proposed settlement (“Notice of Proposed Settlement”). You may inspect the

18

Stipulation and other papers filed in the Derivative Actions at the United States District Clerk’s

19

office at any time during regular business hours of each business day, at the address set forth

20

above. You also may review the Stipulation and Notice of Proposed Settlement on Oracle’s

21

website at http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/investor-relations/index.html. You also may

22

request the Stipulation and Notice of Proposed Settlement from Derivative Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

23
24
25
26

Mark C. Molumphy
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Tel: [phone]

27

You are encouraged to review the Notice of Proposed Settlement and the Stipulation. PLEASE

28

DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MATTER
2
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS

[Proposed Abridged Derivative Notice for Publication in Investor’s Business Daily]

1

TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE. Instead, any questions should be

2

directed by telephone or in writing to Derivative Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

3

You may, but are not required to, appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want

4

to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, then you must comply with the procedures for objecting,

5

which are set forth in the Notice of Proposed Settlement, on or before _________ __, 2013.

6

Current Oracle Shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do not need to

7

appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action. If you do not take steps to appear in

8

these actions and object to the proposed settlement, you will be bound by the final judgment of

9

the Court and will forever be barred from raising an objection to such settlement in this or any

10

other action or proceeding, and from pursuing any of the released claims.

11
12
13
14

DATED: ________________, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
MASTER FILE NO. C-10-03392-RS; CASE NO. C 11-04493-RS