Elias v. Micron Technology Inc. et al
Filing
22
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIBUTION AND CLAIMS PROTOCOLS, CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES, FINALLY ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, PARTS I AND II; FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/27/14. (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
JOSEF D. COOPER (53015)
TRACY R. KIRKHAM (69912)
COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
357 Tehama Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 788-3030
Facsimile: (415) 882-7040
E-mail: jdc@coopkirk.com
Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of the State of California
KATHLEEN FOOTE (65819)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
EMILIO E. VARANINI (163952)
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 703-5908
Facsimile: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Emilio.Varanini@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for the State of California On Behalf of All Attorneys General
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS
MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
This Document Relates to:
)
ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
)
)
and
)
State of California et al. v. Infineon
)
Technologies AG, et al.
)
State of New York v. Micron Technology Inc., et )
)
al.
)
State of California et al. v. Samsung Electronics )
Co., Ltd., et al.
)
State of California et al. v. Winbond Electronics )
)
Co.
)
Petro Computer Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. )
)
Petro Computer Systems, Inc. v. Mitsubishi
)
Electric Corporation, et. al.
)
)
Case No. M-02-1486-PJH
MDL No. 1486
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS,
PLANS OF DISTRIBUTION AND
CLAIMS PROTOCOLS, CERTIFYING
SETTLEMENT CLASSES, FINALLY
ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
PARTS I AND II; FINAL JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Case No. C 06-4333 PJH
Case No. C 06-6436 PJH
Case No. C 07-1347 PJH
Case No. C 07-2589 PJH
Case No. C 12-5213 PJH
Case No. C 12-5214 PJH
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
Petro Computer Systems, Inc. v. Toshiba
Corporation, et. al.
)
)
)
State of California et al., v. Toshiba
)
Corporation et al.,
)
State of California et al., v. Mitsubishi Electric )
)
Corporation, et. al.
)
)
State of California et al., v. Hitachi, Ltd.
)
Case No. C 12-5215 PJH
Case No. C 12-5230 PJH
Case No. C 12-5229 PJH
Case No. C 12-5231 PJH
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Attorneys General have jointly moved the Court to:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(1)
Grant final approval to settlements with defendants Samsung, Winbond, Infineon,
Elpida, NEC, Micron, Mosel, Hynix, Nanya, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi, as those entities are
defined in their respective Settlement Agreements (collectively, the “Settlements” and the “Settling
Defendants”) and certify the settlement classes defined in the Settlement Agreements pursuant to
Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2)
Grant final approval to the plans for distributing the settlement proceeds to members
of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class and to members of the Government Purchaser Settlement
Classes (“Plans of Distribution”) that are recommended in the “Report and Recommendations of
Special Master, Part I: Settlement Class Certifications And Plans Of Allocation And Distribution Of
The Settlement Proceeds To The Settlement Classes” (“Report, Part I”), filed January 8, 2013 (Dkt.
No. 2132) at ¶¶ 24, and 293 – 363;
(3)
Grant final approval to the protocols for claims processing for the Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Class that were recommended in the “Report and Recommendations of Special Master,
Part II: Notice Programs, Claim Procedures and Processing” (“Report, Part II”), filed June 24, 2013
(Dkt. No. 2147) at ¶¶ 29 – 38;
(4)
Adopt, as a final matter, the findings of fact, conclusions of law and
recommendations contained in the Special Master’s Report, Part I, and in the Special Master’s
Report, Part II, as to the process employed in arriving at and fixing the protocols for claims
processing for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 53(f)(2), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
A hearing was held on June 25, 2014, and these matters having come on before the Court to
24
determine whether to finally approve the Settlements, the plans of distribution and the claims
25
protocols, and whether to adopt as a final matter the findings, conclusions and recommendations in
26
the Report, Parts I and II. Six (6) objections were filed on behalf of a total of thirteen (13) members
27
of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class. These objections were directed to the certification of the
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class, the form of notice to that Class, and the plan of distribution
proposed for that Class. The substance of these objections falls broadly into the following
categories: (1) that the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it includes residents of states whose courts
construe their antitrust laws in accordance with Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977)
(“non-repealer states”); (2) that the proposed plan of distribution for the Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Class is unfair and unreasonable because it provides for the payment of claims from
residents of non-repealer states pro rata with the claims of residents of states whose courts or
legislatures have determined that their antitrust laws are not constrained by Illinois Brick (“repealer
states”); (3) that the proposed plan of distribution for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class is
unfair and unreasonable because it contains contingent provisions that under certain circumstances
would trigger the cy pres distribution of a portion of the settlement proceeds; (4) that neither the
settlements nor the plan of distribution can be approved until the contingent cy pres recipients are
determined; and (5) that the notice given to the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class was insufficient
because it did not provide putative class members with information from which to compute the
amount of money that they will receive from the settlement funds. No objections were raised to the
certification of the Government Purchaser Settlement Classes, to the plans of distribution
recommended by the Special Master for those classes, or to the claims protocols for the Indirect
Purchaser Settlement Class. No objectors appeared at the hearing.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court having carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreements, and Plaintiffs’ motions for
final approval of the settlements, approval of the plans of distribution and claims processing
protocols and the adoption of the Report Parts I and II (Dkt. Nos. 2213 and 2215), the objections
raised to the approval of the Settlements, certification of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class, the
plan of distribution recommended by the Special Master for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class,
and to the class notice (Dkt. Nos. 2198, 2199, 2200, 2201, 2202, 2204, 2225, 2226 and 2228), and
the Plaintiffs’ responses to these objections in their motions for final approval and for adoption of
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
the plans of distribution and claims protocols, the arguments of counsel, and the records on file in
this action, and having addressed these objections and other issues at the hearing, the Court has
rejected these objections and determined that: (1) the Settlements as set forth in the Settlement
Agreements with the Settling Defendants should be given final approval; (2) the plans of
distribution for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class and the Government Purchaser Settlement
Classes, as set out in the Report, Part I, should be approved and adopted by this Court; (3) the claims
processing protocols for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class, as set out in the Report, Part II,
should be approved and adopted by this Court; (4) Plaintiffs’ motion for final adoption of the
findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations set out in the Report, Parts I and II should
be granted; and (5) there is no just reason for delay in the entry of Judgment, which shall constitute a
final adjudication of this case on the merits as to the Settling Defendants. Accordingly, good cause
appearing therefor, it is:
13
14
15
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, and all actions
16
within this litigation, and over the parties to the Settlement Agreements, including all members of
17
the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class, the Government Purchaser Settlement Classes, the
18
Plaintiffs, and the Settling Defendants, and any person or entity claiming by, for, or through the
19
Settling Parties with regard the Released Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreements.
20
2.
The following classes are certified for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23,
21
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bearing in mind that this litigation presented a series of difficult
22
factual, legal and procedural issues, many of which remained undecided at the time of the
23
Settlements. The Settlements resolve the litigation to give certainty to the parties, and nothing in
24
this Order, other than the findings and conclusions of the Court as expressly set forth in this Order,
25
resolves those issues:
26
27
28
The Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class: All natural persons and
non-governmental entities, who, at any time during the period
from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002, purchased
dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”) devices and
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
components, including all products containing DRAM, anywhere
in the United States indirectly from the defendants, their parents,
subsidiaries and affiliates. Excluded from this definition are
defendants and their parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, legal
representatives, successors, assigns or co-conspirators; all
governmental entities; any judicial officer presiding over the
settled litigation and the members of his/her immediate family
and judicial staff.
2
3
4
5
The Samsung/Winbond Government Purchaser Settlement Class:
All state government entities, all political subdivisions and all
public colleges and universities in Class States Alaska, Delaware,
Ohio and Pennsylvania, all political subdivisions in New Mexico
and all political subdivisions, the University of California and the
State Bar of California in Class State California who purchased
DRAM or DRAM-containing products directly or indirectly from
Samsung and Winbond between January 1, 1998 and December
31, 2002;
6
7
8
9
10
The Multi-Defendant Government Purchaser Settlement Class:
All political subdivisions in Class State New Mexico and all
political subdivisions, the University of California and the State
Bar of California in Class State California who purchased DRAM
or DRAM-containing products directly or indirectly from
Infineon, Elpida, NEC, Mosel, Micron, Hynix, Nanya, Mitsubishi,
Toshiba and Hitachi between January 1, 1998 and December 31,
2002.
11
12
13
14
15
3.
Within the context of and for the purposes of the approval of the Settlements, the
16
Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a), Federal Rules of Civil of Procedure, have been
17
satisfied by each of the above-described classes in that: (a) there are numerous putative class
18
members, making joinder of all class members impracticable; (b) there are questions of fact and law
19
that are common to all members of the class; (c) the claims of the named plaintiffs who are class
20
representatives are typical of the claims of the absent members of the class; (d) the named plaintiffs
21
who are class representatives have and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the absent
22
members of the class; and (e) the counsel for the class are skilled and experienced litigators who
23
have and will adequately advance the interests of the class. The Court adopts as a final matter the
24
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report, Part I, as to satisfaction of the
25
requirements of Rule 23(a) by each of the above-described classes, as if fully set forth herein.
26
27
28
4.
Within the context of and for the purposes of the approval of the Settlements, the
Court further finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Procedure, have been satisfied for settlement purposes by each of the above-described classes in
that: (a) the defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class; (b) questions of fact
and law common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only the claims of
individual class members; and (c) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Court adopts as a final matter the findings of fact
and conclusions of law set forth in the Report, Part I, as to satisfaction of the requirements of Rule
23(b)(2) and (b)(3) by each of the above-described classes, as if fully set forth herein.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5.
The Court hereby appoints as a final matter the plaintiffs named in the Petro
Complaint as the representatives of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class, and Indirect Purchasers’
Co-Lead Counsel, Cooper & Kirkham, Gustafson Gluek, The Mogin Law Firm and Straus & Boies,
as counsel for the class. The Court adopts as a final matter the findings of fact and conclusions of
law set forth in the Report, Part I, as to the qualification of these firms to serve as class counsel, as if
fully set forth herein.
6.
The Court hereby appoints as a final matter as the representatives of the
16
Samsung/Winbond Government Purchaser Settlement Class, the States of Alaska, Delaware, Ohio
17
and Pennsylvania, and for California class members, the City and County of San Francisco, Santa
18
Clara County and the Los Angeles Unified School District, and for New Mexico class members, the
19
Rio Rancho Public Schools. The Court further appoints as a final matter as the representatives of
20
the Multi-Defendant Government Purchaser Settlement Class, for California class members, the City
21
and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County and the Los Angeles Unified School District, and
22
for New Mexico class members, the Rio Rancho Public Schools. The Court appoints as a final
23
matter Emilio E. Varanini, Deputy Attorney General of the California Attorney General’s Office, as
24
counsel for each of the government purchaser classes. The Court adopts as a final matter the
25
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report, Part I, as to the qualification of Mr.
26
Varanini to serve as class counsel, as if fully set forth herein.
27
28
5
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7.
The “Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ and Attorneys General’s Notice of Exclusions,”
filed May 15, 2014 (Dkt. No. 2205) set out the names of five (5) individuals who elected to exclude
themselves from the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Settlement Class and the parens patriae actions,
and the two (2) Oregon governmental entities who elected to exclude themselves pursuant to the
Oregon notice provisions. Such persons/entities are not included in or bound by this Final
Judgment. Such persons/entities are not entitled to any recovery from the settlement proceeds
obtained through the Settlements.
8
8.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Prior to receipt of these requests for exclusion, Notice of this litigation and the
proposed settlements was given to putative members of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class,
including those covered by the parens patriae actions, the Government Purchaser Settlement
Classes, and by the Oregon Attorney General pursuant to the notice requirements of OR. REV. STAT.
§646.775 (2)(a), all in accordance with this Court’s “Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Joint
Settlements, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Classes, Adopting Special Master’s Report and
Recommendations, Parts I & II, Disseminating Notice To the Settlement Classes, and Scheduling
Fairness Hearing,” filed January 17, 2014 (Dkt. No. 2174), (“Preliminary Approval Order”). The
Court confirms its prior findings that the Notices given pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order
were the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court further confirms its prior
findings that said notices provided due, adequate, and sufficient notice of these proceedings and of
the matters set forth herein, including the proposed settlements set forth in the Settlement
Agreements, and that said notice fully satisfied the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and all applicable state laws.
9.
23
The Court finds that the Settling Defendants have provided a notice of proposed
24
settlement that complies with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1711-
25
15.
26
27
28
10.
The Court hereby finally approves and confirms the Settlements set forth in the
Settlement Agreements with the Settling Defendants and finds that said settlements are, in all
6
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and all applicable state laws.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11.
The Court hereby dismisses on the merits and with prejudice the individual, parens
patriae, governmental entity, and class claims asserted by the Plaintiffs against the Settling
Defendants, with all parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees except as provided for in the
Agreements and by order of this Court. All parties will seek the dismissal of any state court actions
covered by the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreements.
12.
As provided in each of the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Defendants and all
10
persons and entities who are defined as Releasees are hereby and forever released and discharged
11
with respect to any and all claims or causes of action which the Plaintiffs and members of the
12
certified Settlement Classes and any person or entity defined in the Settlement Agreements as
13
Releasors had or have arising out of or related in any way to any of the Released Claims as defined
14
in the Settlement Agreements.
15
13.
Private claims against the Settling Defendants and Releasees are released by two
16
Settling Plaintiff groups: the class of Indirect Purchasers as certified above and the Attorneys
17
General through their parens patriae claims. The releases are as follow:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Settling Defendants and Releasees, as defined above, shall be completely
released, acquitted, and forever discharged from any and all claims, demands,
actions, suits, causes of action, whether class, individual, or otherwise in nature
(whether or not any Settling Plaintiff has objected to the settlement or makes a
claim upon or participates in the Settlement Fund), whether directly,
representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity that Releasors, as defined
above, or each of them, ever had, now has, or hereafter can, shall, or may have on
account of, related to, or in any way arising out of, any and all known and
unknown, foreseen and unforeseen, suspected or unsuspected injuries, damages,
and the consequences thereof in any way arising out of or relating in any way to
any act or omission of the Settling Defendants Releasees (or any of them)
concerning the pricing, production, development, or sale of DRAM products or
products containing DRAM up to December 31, 2002, based on the conduct
alleged and causes of action asserted or that could have been asserted, in
complaints filed in the Actions by the Settling Plaintiffs, or in any similar action
filed in any federal or state court, including, without limitation, any claims arising
7
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
under any federal or state antitrust, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, trade
practice statutory or common law, and consumer protection law (to the extent that
a consumer protection claim would be based on allegations of an antitrust or
unfair competition violation) (the “Released Claims”). Releasors shall not, after
the date of this Agreement, seek to establish liability against any Settling
Defendants Releasee based, in whole or in part, upon any of the Released Claims,
or conduct at issue in the Released Claims. The Settling Parties contemplate and
agree that the Settlement Agreements may be pleaded as a bar to a lawsuit, and an
injunction may be obtained, preventing any action from being initiated or
maintained in any case sought to be prosecuted on behalf of indirect DRAM
purchasers with respect to the claims released in this paragraph. This release,
discharge, and covenant not to sue does not include claims by any of the Settling
Plaintiffs other than the claims set forth therein and does not include other claims,
such as those solely arising out of product liability or warranty claims in the
ordinary course of business.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Because both Settling Plaintiff groups are giving complete releases of the Released Claims, this
11
Court need not determine and has not determined which of the two Settling Plaintiff groups is
12
releasing or may release any of the Released Claims.
13
14
14.
The Settling Defendants are enjoined for a period of three years from the execution
15
of their various Settlement Agreements from engaging in certain conduct specified therein, but
16
generally falling into the broad categories of price fixing, market allocation and bid rigging, with
17
respect to the sale of any DRAM product for delivery in the United States, which constitutes
18
horizontal conduct that are per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, including,
19
participating in meetings, conversations, and communications with each other and other DRAM
20
manufacturers (other than among affiliated entities) in the United States and elsewhere to discuss the
21
prices of DRAM to be sold to original equipment manufacturers of personal computers and servers
22
(“OEM customers”) and exchanging information on sales of DRAM to OEM customers, for the
23
purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to agreed-upon prices. The Settling Defendants are
24
also required pursuant to the terms of their various Settlement Agreements to establish, within
25
ninety days of final approval, if not already established, and maintain for a period of three years
26
thereafter, a program to provide relevant antitrust compliance education to the Settling Defendants’
27
officers and employees with responsibility for pricing and sales of DRAM in and to the United
28
8
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
States regarding the legal standards imposed by federal and state antitrust laws, and to certify to a
designated representative of the plaintiffs by appropriate letter that it is fully compliant with the
provisions of their respective Settlement Agreements.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15.
The Court hereby adopts and fixes the Plans for Distribution for the Indirect
Purchaser Settlement Class and the Government Purchaser Settlement Classes that are
recommended by the Special Master in the Report, Part I, at ¶¶ 24, and 293 – 363. The Court also
adopts as a final matter the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations contained in
the Special Master’s Report, Part I, as to the process employed in arriving at and fixing, and the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Plans of Distribution for the Settlement Classes.
16.
The Court hereby adopts and fixes the claims processing protocols for the Indirect
12
Purchaser Settlement Class that are recommended by the Special Master in the Report, Part II, at ¶¶
13
29 – 38. The Court also adopts as a final matter the findings of fact, conclusions of law and
14
recommendations contained in the Special Master’s Report, Part II, as to the process employed in
15
arriving at and fixing, and the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the claims processing
16
protocols for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class.
17
17.
The Court has carefully and fully reviewed and considered all of the objections to the
18
proposed settlements, the objections to the certification of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class,
19
the objections to the proposed plan of distribution for the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class and to
20
the form of notice to that Class, and, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ responses to the
21
objections, as further developed at the fairness hearing, the Court concludes that none of these
22
objections raises any grounds to decline certification of the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class, to
23
deny final approval to the Settlements or to fail to adopt the plan of distribution for the Indirect
24
Purchaser Settlement Class, and accordingly the Court hereby OVERRULES each of the objections.
25
26
27
28
18.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court hereby retains
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreements; (b) disposition of the Settlement Funds as defined in each Agreement and
9
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
distribution to class members pursuant to further orders of this Court; (c) the designation of cy pres
recipients and the cy pres disposition of settlement funds should that become necessary; (d) the
Settling Defendants until the Final Judgment contemplated hereby has become effective and each
and every act agreed to be performed by the parties has been performed pursuant to the Settlement
Agreements; and (e) all parties and Releasors and Releasees for the purpose of enforcing and
administering the Settlement Agreements and the mutual releases, including the execution and filing
of any documents contemplated by, or executed in connection with, the Settlement Agreements.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
19.
In the event that a settlement does not become effective in accordance with the terms
of any of the relevant Settlement Agreements, then the judgment shall be rendered null and void and
shall be vacated as to that Agreement, and in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in
connection herewith shall be null and void and the parties to that Agreement shall be returned to
their respective positions ex ante.
20.
The Court finds, pursuant to Rules 54(a) and (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
15
that this Final Judgment should be entered and further finds that there is no just reason for delay in
16
the entry of this Final Judgment, as a Final Judgment, as to the parties to the Agreements.
17
Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter the Judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to
18
Settling Defendants, forthwith.
19
UNIT
ED
S
27
Dated: June ___, 2014
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
IT IS SO
RT
U
O
ED
ORDER
amilton
H
ER
LI
RT
22
FO
yllis J. H
Judge Ph
NO
21
R NIA
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
Judge of the United States District Court
A
20
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, PLANS OF DISTRIUTION,
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND JUDGMENT – CASE NO. M-02-1486-PJH
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?