Porter v. Span-America Medical Systems Inc et al

Filing 15

MODIFIED ORDER REGARDING THE STIPULATION DISMISSING CASE Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 7/11/2017. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Charles Porter, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
§
SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL SYSTEMS,
§
INC., THOMAS D. HENRION, JAMES D.
§
FERGUSON, THOMAS F. GRADY,
§
RICHARD C. COGGINS, ROBERT H. DICK, §
DAN R. LEE, LINDA D. NORMAN,
§
THOMAS SULLIVAN, and TERRY
§
ALLISON RAPPUHN,
§
§
Defendants.
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:17-01357-MGL

MODIFIED ORDER REGARDING THE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, Plaintiff Charles Porter (“Plaintiff”) filed the abovecaptioned action (the “Action”) challenging the public disclosures made in a Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the “Recommendation Statement”) filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with a proposed merger between SpanAmerica Medical Systems, Inc. and Savaria Corporation (the “Proposed Transaction”);
WHEREAS, the Action asserts claims for violations of sections 14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. (“Span-

America” or the “Company”) and the members of the Company’s Board of Directors (together
with Span-America, the “Defendants”);
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,
seeking an order: (i) temporarily restraining Defendants from consummating the ongoing tender
offer, pending expedited discovery and a hearing on Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion for a
preliminary injunction; (ii) permitting limited expedited discovery; and (iii) scheduling a prompt
post-expedited discovery hearing on the forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction (the
“TRO Motion”);
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2017, the Court entered an Order scheduling a hearing on
Plaintiff’s TRO Motion for June 1, 2017;
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order rescheduling the hearing on
Plaintiff’s TRO Motion for June 8, 2017;
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2017, Span-America filed an amendment to the Recommendation
Statement that supplemented the Recommendation Statement with certain additional information
relating to the Proposed Transaction that addresses and moots all claims asserted in this action (the
“Supplemental Disclosures”);
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing his TRO Motion as moot
and requesting that the Court cancel the hearing scheduled for June 8, 2017;
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2017, as a result of the closing of the tender offer and completion
of the Proposed Transaction, the Company became an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Savaria;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff asserts that the prosecution of the Action caused Span-America to
file the Supplemental Disclosures with the SEC and that Plaintiff’s counsel have the right to seek

2

and recover an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with a claimed common benefit
provided to Span-America’s shareholders as a result of the filing of the Supplemental Disclosures
(“Fee Award”), and Plaintiff’s counsel have informed Defendants that, if their claim for a Fee
Award cannot be resolved through negotiations between counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants, then
Plaintiff intends to petition the Court for such fees and expenses (the “Fee Application”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff believes and contends that the Supplemental Disclosures mooted the
claims set forth in the Complaint, and that remaining claims are so unlikely to be successful as to
warrant dismissal;
WHEREAS, for the avoidance of doubt, no compensation in any form has passed directly
or indirectly to the Plaintiff or his attorneys and no promise, understanding, or agreement to give
any such compensation has been made, nor have the parties had any discussions concerning the
amount of any Fee Application or Fee Award;
WHEREAS, all of the Defendants in the Action reserve all rights, arguments and defenses,
including the right to oppose any potential Fee Application;
WHEREAS, the parties intend to meet and confer concerning the amount of any Fee
Award, and, in case the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the parties respectfully request
that this Court retain jurisdiction over the prospective Fee Application; and
WHEREAS, no class has been certified in the Action; and
WHEREAS, the Defendants have previously denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing
and contend that no claim asserted in the Action was ever meritorious.
NOW, THEREFORE:
1. Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action without
prejudice, as to himself, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and the

3

Action shall be so dismissed. The dismissal is as to the named Plaintiff only and
has no effect upon the absent members of the putative class.
2. Consequently, the Court holds this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. If the parties fail to reach an agreement concerning the Fee Award
issue within sixty days, however, any party may petition the Court to reopen this
action and restore it to the calendar.
3. By agreement of the parties, the Court retains jurisdiction of the Action solely for
the purpose of determining Plaintiff’s forthcoming Fee Application, if such Fee
Application becomes necessary.
4. The dismissal shall be with prejudice if no action is taken within sixty days from
the filing date of this order.
5. To the extent that the parties are unable to reach an agreement concerning a Fee
Award and, if Plaintiff intends to file a Fee Application, then the parties shall
contact the Court regarding a briefing schedule to present Plaintiff’s Fee
Application to the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 11th day of July 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.

/s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4