Examples of Zurich Settlement in a sentence
Unlike the Zurich Settlement, Van Enterprises did object in writing to the Gallagher Settlement on the basis of the named plaintiffs’ lack of standing, and therefore these arguments were considered by the District Court.
The class includes those persons who bought the primary and excess insurance from the The Zurich Defendants also agreed to separately pay any administration and distribution costs associated with the Zurich Settlement Agreement.
Thus, the Zurich Defendants were required to pay $70,100,000 under the terms of the Zurich Settlement Agreement and $51,700,000 under the terms of the Multi-State Agreement for a total fund of$121,800,000 for the Settlement Class Members, while$29,900,000 of the amount designated for the Settlement Class in the MOU would be used to fund the $88,000,000 award established by the Three-State Agreement.
Only if the Zurich Defendants failed to disburse at least $29,900,000 through the Three-State Agreement (all of which would go to policyholders who were eligible for relief under the Zurich Settlement Agreement) would the Zurich Defendants be required to fund the balance to the Settlement Class fund.
Van Enterprises presents nearly identical challenges to the District Court’s approval of the Gallagher Settlement as it did with respect to the Zurich Settlement, arguing that the named plaintiffs lack standing, the Settlement Class is overbroad and the certification requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) were not satisfied, and the Plan of Allocation is not fair.
The District Court correctly noted that “‘commonality does not require an identity of claims or facts among class members’; rather, ‘[t]he commonality requirement will be satisfied if the named plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class.’” Zurich Settlement Final Approval Opinion at *13 (quoting Newton v.
In addition to considering the percentage of recovery in the context of the Gunter factors, the District Court also performed a lodestar cross-check and calculated the lodestar multiplier by using Class Counsel’s proposed fee award of$29,950,000, and dividing that number by the value of the lodestar that Class Counsel claimed for its work through July 31, 2006 (the approximate time when the Zurich Settlement Agreement was reached).
The District Court proceeded to analyze each of the Gunter factors, at times applying some of the same reasoning it used in approving the Zurich Settlement Agreement under the Girsh factors.
Finally, we provide an overview of the 16We consolidated the appeals from the Zurich Settlement and the Gallagher Settlement for purposes of oral argument and disposition.
At the outset, the plaintiffs assert that Van Enterprises failed to properly preserve its arguments with respect to the Zurich Settlement.