Reasons for Settlement. The parties wish to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. Disagreement on Amount of Damages: The parties do not agree on the average amount of damages per share that would be recoverable if the Court- appointed Lead Plaintiffs prevailed. The primary issues on which the parties disagree include: (1) whether the Defendants are liable under the securities laws; and
Reasons for Settlement. The core of Lead Plaintiff’s case is that the registration statements and prospectuses issued by the Core Bond Fund during the period between April 30, 2007 and December 31, 2008 (“Disclosure Documents”) allegedly represented the Core Bond Fund as a “broadly diversified portfolio” that was designed to “seek total return and reduce share price volatility” and was focused “mainly on U.S. government securities and investment- grade debt securities.” Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Disclosure Documents misrepresented the riskiness of investments in the Core Bond Fund when they acquired positions in leveraged derivative investments, such as credit default swaps, total return swaps and mortgage-backed securities. As strongly as Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believed in their case, there were significant risks of pursuing this case to trial. For instance, Defendants: (i) denied having any liability to Lead Plaintiff or to the members of the Class (defined below) and argued that language in the Disclosure Documents put Class Members on notice of the risks associated with the Core Bond Fund’s investments in derivatives and mortgage-backed securities; (ii) argued that the financial crisis was unprecedented and caught even the most sophisticated financial firms by surprise, thus any undisclosed risks were unforeseeable, no misrepresentations were made, and no statements, acts, or omissions by Defendants were the cause of any harm to Lead Plaintiff or Class Members; and (iii) disputed the amount of alleged damages and would use their own experts at trial to argue that the alleged damages were not related to the misrepresentations alleged in the case. It is impossible to predict how a jury might resolve this case. Settlement avoids the uncertainty of a jury trial, the costs and risks associated with continued litigation, including the danger of no recovery, and provides a substantial benefit to the Class now. If the Case Had Not Settled: The settlement must be compared to the risk of no recovery after contested motions, trial and likely appeals. While Lead Counsel was prepared to go to trial and was confident about the claims, a trial is a risky proposition and Lead Plaintiff might not have prevailed. The claims in this case involve numerous complex legal and factual issues that would require extensive expert testimony. Even if Defendants’ liability was proven at trial, the two sides do not agree about, among other things: (1) the amount of alleged damages, if any, t...
Reasons for Settlement. The Court has not reached any final decisions in connection with Lead Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants. Instead, Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants (collectively, the “Settling Parties”) have agreed to this Settlement, which was reached with after extensive arm’s-length negotiations. For Lead Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate benefit of a cash recovery for the Settlement Class from Defendants from whom it would otherwise likely be extremely difficult to recover funds. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved following the completion of fact and expert discovery and the briefing of summary judgment motions. Even if the case advanced to trial, Lead Plaintiff would face the risk of losing at trial and the risk that a Class might not be certified, as well as the risk of likely appeals which could last one or more additional years even if Lead Plaintiff prevailed at trial. These risks would be compounded by the difficulty, and possible impossibility, of enforcing any judgment against the Defendants. For the Defendants (who deny all allegations of liability and deny that any Class Members were damaged) the principal reason for the Settlement is to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation.
Reasons for Settlement. Class Counsel believes that the provision of the class benefits, including the injunctive relief, adequately compensates Class Members for the harm they allegedly suffered, in light of the risks of litigation. There are numerous risks in continuing with this Litigation, including the possibility of being unable to secure monetary relief on behalf of the Class and the risks associated with the EarthLink Counterclaim. Given the risks associated with this litigation, Class Counsel believes that this recovery is excellent.
Reasons for Settlement. For Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate benefit of a substantial cash recovery for the Class. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved after the Court decides the pending request for permission to move for reargument, any motion for class certification, any summary judgment motions and after a contested trial and likely appeals are resolved, possibly years into the future. For the Defendants, who deny all allegations of liability and deny that any Class Members were damaged, the principal reason for the Settlement is to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THE SETTLEMENT ACTIONS YOU MAY PURSUE EFFECT OF TAKING THIS ACTION SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN , 2019. This is the only way to be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN , 2019. Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants concerning the claims that were, or could have been, asserted in this case. It is also the only way for Class Members to remove themselves from the Class. If you are considering excluding yourself from the Class, please note that there is a risk that any new claims asserted against the Defendants would be time-barred. You should talk to a lawyer before you request exclusion from the Class for the purpose of bringing a separate lawsuit. See page below. OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN , 2019. Write to the Court and explain why you do not like the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses or award to the Plaintiff. In order to object, you must remain a Member of the Class, may not exclude yourself, and you will be bound by the Court’s determinations. GO TO THE HEARING ON , 2019 AT _: _.M., AND FILE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN , 2019. Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Reasons for Settlement a. The T2 Plaintiffs brought derivative claims with the intention of ensuring that the interests of all Reading stockholders were being appropriately protected. In connection with the 2 litigation, the T2 Plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery on the matters alleged in the T2 and Xxx Xxxxxx, Jr. Complaints, discovery that included depositions of Xxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxx XxXxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Jr. Following their efforts on behalf of the stockholders, the T2 Plaintiffs have concluded that continuing with their derivative stockholder litigation would provide no further benefit to Reading’s stockholders, including the T2 Plaintiffs. The T2 Plaintiffs believe that the Settlement provides substantial and immediate benefits for Reading and its current stockholders. In addition to these substantial benefits, T2 Plaintiffs and their counsel have considered: (i) the attendant risks of continued litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome of the T2 Action; (ii) the probability of success on the merits; (iii) the inherent problems of proof associated with, and possible defenses to, the claims asserted in the T2 Action; (iv) the desirability of permitting the settlement to be consummated according to its terms; (v) the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the T2 Action against the Defendants through trial and appeals; (vi) the T2 Plaintiffs’ confidence in the Reading Board of Directors and its management after conducting extensive discovery and (vii) the conclusion of the T2 Plaintiffs and their counsel that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that it is in the best interests of Reading and its current stockholders to settle the T2 Action on the terms set forth herein. Based on T2 Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s thorough review and analysis of the relevant facts, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal principles, T2 Plaintiffs’ Counsel believes that the settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and confers substantial benefits upon Reading and its current stockholders. Based upon T2 Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s evaluation as well as T2 Plaintiffs’ own evaluation, T2 Plaintiffs have determined that the settlement is in the best interests of Reading and its current stockholders and has agreed to settle the T2 Action upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in th...
Reasons for Settlement. For Lead Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate benefit of a cash recovery for the Settlement Class. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved following the Court’s decision on the Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, the completion of fact and expert discovery if the case was not dismissed, and the briefing of summary judgment motions. Even if the case advanced to trial, Lead Plaintiff would face the risk of losing at trial and the risk that a class might not be certified, as well as the risk of likely appeals which could last one or more additional years even if Plaintiff prevailed at trial. For the Defendants (who deny all allegations of liability and deny that any Class members were damaged) the principal reason for the Settlement is to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation.
Reasons for Settlement. In order to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, the Parties have agreed to compromise their respective claims and defenses. This Settlement Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, and nothing contained herein is to be construed as an admission of fact or of liability on the part of any Part or of the absence of liability by any Party with respect to the Claims.
