Gaff v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Sixth Circuit

Gaff v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

933 F.2d 400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1991

DocketNos. 88-1566, 89-1044 and 89-1066

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 933 F.2d 400 (Gaff v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gaff v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 933 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND ON PETITION TO REHEAR

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, NELSON, Circuit Judge, and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.

After issuing its opinion in the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, on November 19, 1990, 919 F.2d 384, the Court requested our Court’s Settlement Officer, Mr. Robert Rack, to determine if the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, and the Collins case, Nos. 89-1044 and 89-1066, may be settled in order to avoid the expense of further litigation. As a result the parties to both cases, which arise from a common core of operative facts, have now settled their claims. The settlement includes the reinstatement of the District Court’s decision of November 1988 in the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, dismissing the shareholder claims and the dismissal of the Collins appeals. The Court approves the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.

After considering the settlement process undertaken and the parties’ petition to rehear, we modify our opinion in the Gaff case on November 19, 1990, No. 88-1566, by adding at the end of Section III of our opinion the following paragraph:

Where settlement of litigation involving FDIC would be facilitated by the prior adjudication of the legal sufficiency of the shareholder claims under Rule 12(b)(6), on summary judgment, or otherwise, the district court may lift the stay on the prosecution of shareholder claims and proceed to determine the sufficiency thereof. As a result of the settlement process and the rehearing petitions, the Court has learned that its prior opinion did not take fully into account the procedural steps needed to facilitate a settlement process in such cases. We therefore make this modification in our earlier opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND ON PETITION TO REHEAR

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, NELSON, Circuit Judge, and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.

After issuing its opinion in the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, on November 19, 1990, 919 F.2d 384, the Court requested our Court’s Settlement Officer, Mr. Robert Rack, to determine if the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, and the Collins case, Nos. 89-1044 and 89-1066, may be settled in order to avoid the expense of further litigation. As a result the parties to both cases, which arise from a common core of operative facts, have now settled their claims. The settlement includes the reinstatement of the District Court’s decision of November 1988 in the Gaff case, No. 88-1566, dismissing the shareholder claims and the dismissal of the Collins appeals. The Court approves the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.

After considering the settlement process undertaken and the parties’ petition to rehear, we modify our opinion in the Gaff case on November 19, 1990, No. 88-1566, by adding at the end of Section III of our opinion the following paragraph:

Where settlement of litigation involving FDIC would be facilitated by the prior adjudication of the legal sufficiency of the shareholder claims under Rule 12(b)(6), on summary judgment, or otherwise, the district court may lift the stay on the prosecution of shareholder claims and proceed to determine the sufficiency thereof. As a result of the settlement process and the rehearing petitions, the Court has learned that its prior opinion did not take fully into account the procedural steps needed to facilitate a settlement process in such cases. We therefore make this modification in our earlier opinion.

Joel R. Gaff, on Behalf of Himself, as a Class Action on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and as a Stockholder's Derivative Action for the Benefit of the Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity, Intervening v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Receiver of National Bank & Trust Co. Of Traverse City, a National Banking Association David E. Pearce Bruce W. Mann and Other Unknown (88-1566), Robert S. Collins Maxine Collins Mark S. Collins Karen Collins Brown Margaret C. Strong Carter C. Strong, Jr. Brian E. Strong Nancy R. Strong Arthur Versluis Frank W. Tezak Donald Arnold Thereon McGillis Elizabeth McGillis Howard Reenders Bernard Schiopieray Virginia Schiopieray Keith Rose Donald G. Jennings Donald C. McKenzie Amber C. Mark Bernard L. Pleva Irene Pleva Paul Pleva John R. Pleva Donna K. Pleva Vernon Elzinga George W. Kelderhouse Agnes C. Kelderhouse Gerald J. Brow William C. Andresen Diann Godbold, on Behalf of Themselves, and as a Class Action on Behalf of Others, as Herein Described, Defined, Similarly Situated v. Bruce W. Mann Bernard J. Kroupa James P. Preuett, and Other Unknown (89-1044/1066)

933 F.2d 400 (Sixth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

933 F.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaff-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corp-ca6-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack