In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Erisa Litigation

391 F. Supp. 2d 844, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37877, 2005 WL 2372868
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Erisa Litigation. Read the opinion of the Court — 391 F. Supp. 2d 812
District Court, N.D. California·Decided September 9, 2005·No. No. C-00-20030 RMW·Published

Opinion

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

WHYTE, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2005,

(a) upon consideration of (i) the motion of Plaintiffs for approval of a settlement (the “Settlement”) of this action pursuant to the terms of a Stipulation and Agreement to Settle Claims of HBOC Sub-Class (the “Agreement”) dated as of May 5, 2005 among the HBOC Plaintiffs1 and Defendants McKesson Corporation f/k/a McKes-son HBOC, Inc. (“McKesson”), McKesson Information Solutions, LLC, pk/a HBO & Company (“HBOC”), the McKesson Profit Sharing and Investment Plan (the “McKesson Plan”), Jay P. Gilbertson, Albert J. Bergonzi, E. Christine Rumsey, [847]*847Michael L. Kappel, Charles W. McCall, Alfred C. Eckert III, Alton F. Irby III, Gerald E. Mayo, James V. Napier, Philip A. Incarnati, Donald C. Wegmiller, Charles E. Theole, M. Christine Jacobs, Tully M. Friedman, John M. Pietruski, Carl S. Reichardt, Alan Seelenfreund, and Mark A. Pulido (the “Defendants”), (ü) the applications of Class Counsel for awards of counsel fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (iii) the applications of Albert Adams and Joseph Dolliver for the award of an incentive fee (collectively, the “Motions”);

(b) the Court having entered an Order on May 10, 2005 preliminarily approving the Settlement, certifying the Settlement Class as a mandatory non opt out class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) for purposes of proceedings to consider final approval of the Settlement, approving the form of Class Notice and directing the manner of delivery and publication thereof, and scheduling a hearing to consider the fairness of the Settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), among other matters (the “Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Procedural Order”);

(c) the Court, having received a declaration attesting to the delivery and publication of the Class Notice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Procedural Order; and

(d) a hearing having been held before this Court on September 9, 2005 (the “Final Approval and Fairness Hearing”) (i) to determine finally whether this action satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2); (ii) to consider the fairness of the Settlement, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and to determine whether to enter this Order approving the Settlement; (iii) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Amount is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (iv) to consider the applications of counsel to Plaintiffs for awards of counsel fees and reimbursement of expenses; (v) to consider the applications of Albert Adams and Joseph Dolliver for the award of an incentive; and (vi) to rule upon such other matters as the Court might deem appropriate,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, the HBOC Plaintiffs, all Settlement Class Members, and the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e).

2. The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that:

(a) The class, consisting of thousands of members, is so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is impracticable;

(b) There are questions of law and fact common to the ERISA Class;

(c) The HBOC Plaintiffs, Albert Adams and Joseph Dolliver, are members of the class and their claims are typical of the claims of the ERISA class;

(d) The HBOC Plaintiffs have and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class, have no interests antagonistic to the Settlement Class and have retained qualified, experienced and able counsel;

(e) Prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class could create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants;

(f) Defendants have allegedly acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby justifying equi[848]*848table and/or declaratory relief for the class as a whole if the HBOC Plaintiffs prevail as to their claims;

(g) The class definition is sufficiently precise and proper notice was provided to the class; and

(h) Class Counsel is appropriately qualified and suitable for appointment to represent the class.

3. Accordingly, this Court hereby finally certifies the Settlement Class as a mandatory non-opt-out class pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 28(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2) consisting of all participants in the HBOC Plan and their beneficiaries in the period from March 31, 1996 to July 31, 1999, for whose benefit the HBOC Plan held or acquired HBOC common stock (which includes, after January 12, 1999, McKesson common stock). No class member shall have the right to opt out of the Settlement Class.

4. In accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Procedural Order, Class Notice was timely given to all members of the Settlement Class who could be identified with reasonable effort by June 3, 2005 and was published on the Website maintained by McKesson from June 7, 2005 through the date of this Order. The form and methods of notifying the Settlement Class of the terms and conditions of the proposed Agreement met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and any other applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

5. The motion for approval of the Settlement is hereby GRANTED, and the Settlement is APPROVED as fair, reasonable and adequate, and the terms of the Settlement are hereby determined to be prudent, for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries of the HBOC Plan and in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

6. Counts One through Six of the Consolidated Amended Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA in the Action, asserted on behalf of the Settlement Class against the Defendants, are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

7.

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

In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Erisa Litigation, 391 F. Supp. 2d 844, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37877, 2005 WL 2372868 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

391 F. Supp. 2d 844 (In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Erisa Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)