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 (650) 697-6000.
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: (650) 697-6000
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
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?