Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1093

DECISION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the morning Mist Derivative Plaintiffs' request (Dkt. No. 1079) is denied (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 3/22/2013) (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------X
PASHA S. ANWAR, et al.,
09 Civ. 0118

(VM)

Plaintiffs,

-againstFAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
DECISION AND ORDER

Defendants.
----------------------------- X
VICTOR MARRERO, united States District Judge.

On February 15,
Miguel
filed

Lomeli

Morning Mist Holdings Ltd.

(the

"Morning

Obj ection

their

to

(the "Settlement")
Morning

2013,

Mist

Mist

the

Derivative

Proposed

in this action.

Derivative

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs")

Partial

(Dkt.

No.

filed

a

and

Settlement
1047.)

The

Supplemental

Memorandum in Further Support of Objection on February 19,
2013.
the

(Dkt.
Morning

No.

1049.)

Mist

By letter dated March 11,

Derivative

Plaintiffs

requested

2013,
a

pre-

motion conference regarding their request to review "the FG
Defendants
the
(Dkt.

'certified

Plaintiffs
No.

financial

pursuant

1079.)

By

to

a

letter
to

the

disclosures'"
confidentiality
dated

March

Morning

13,

Mist

Plaintiffs

objected

Plaintif f s'

request as meri tless and untimely.

-1­

provided

to

agreement.
2013,

the

Derivative
(Dkt.

No.

The Settling Defendants concur with the Plaintiffs'

1081. )

position.

In

support

of

their

the parties

Plaintiffs assert
of

the

'" depleted'
that

in

Settlement,

Lead

the

finances

Counsel

now

for

the

conf

ial
ive

Mist

Morning

the

disclosures,

financial

request

justified the

part,

on

of

settling defendants,

the

states

"the

the

fairness

ground

defendant

that
II

'will

it
but
have

(Dkt. No.

assets remaining after funding the Settlement.'"
1079.)
The

Court

finds

Plaintiffs'

that

the

Morning

Mist

Derivative

st is both untimely and without merit.

It

comes less than two weeks before the Court's final fairness
hearing

on

the

Court's Order,

Settlement

request

offered

no

the

Morning

Mist

79

factual

Derivative

(2d Cir.

(35)

by

the

days prior to

ive

they failed

Settlement as insuff
"cogent

required

Mist

to object

to

the

See Weinbe

1982)

Plaintiffs'

Plaintiffs'
to the

and therefore have

objection"

enti tling them to discovery.
698 F.2d 61,

as

(Dkt. No. 1008 at , 23.)

lacks merit because

amount of

not,

"on or before thirty five

the Settlement Hearing."
Further,

and

If anything,
stated

Settlement

v.

Kendrick,

the Morning

objection

to

Settlement is that the Settlement amount is too high

2

not

too

low

the

satis
Mist]

-

and

"assets

there

far

claims

s

Derivative Act
have

Plaintiffs
scovery

If

(Dkt.

be

unavailable
in

as
No.1

at

collusion

no

and

Settling De

s

settlement

confidentiality agreement.

provided

Accordingly,

the

Morning

Dated: New York, New York
22
2013

-3­

the

would warrant
especially
to

a

Thorton v.

(2d Cir. 1992)
Mist

(Dkt. No. 1079) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

[Morning

between

pursuant

See Grant

Sav. Bank, 961 F.2d 1042, 1046,

that

to

Moreover,

iations,

into

evidence

the

10.)

offered

ion

request

would

Derivat

Plaintiffs'