In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II

253 F.R.D. 607, 2008 WL 4146126
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedSeptember 3, 2008
DocketCivil No. 07cv482 NLS
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 253 F.R.D. 607 (In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, 253 F.R.D. 607, 2008 WL 4146126 (S.D. Cal. 2008).

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE AND SETTING DATE FOR FINAL FAIRNESS APPROVAL HEARING

NITA L. STORMES, United States Magistrate Judge.

Lead Plaintiff Washington-Idaho Laborers-Employers Pension Trust Fund (Laborers Fund) and Defendants Wireless Facilities, Inc., Masood K. Tayebi, Massih Tayebi, Terry Ashwill, Daniel G. Stokely, Eric M. DeMarco Scott I. Anderson, Bandel L. Cara-no, William A. Hoglund, Scot Jarvis, Laura L. Siegal, Deanna H. Lund and Thomas Munro filed a joint motion requesting (1) preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, (2) certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (3) approval of the form and manner of giving notice of the proposed settlement to the Settlement Class; and (4) a date for the final fairness approval hearing (Joint Motion). This Court has reviewed all papers filed in support of the Joint Motion, and GRANTS the Joint Motion and LIFTS the stay on proceedings.

[609]*609Relevant Facts1

Procedural History.

Plaintiffs filed a securities class action against Defendants alleging violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. They allege Defendants improperly backdated stock option grants to officers of the Company, improperly accounted for goodwill and issued false and misleading statements that artificially inflated Wireless’ stock price from March 19, 2002 to March 12, 2007, the Settlement Class Period. A total of three putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in this Court on behalf of the purchasers of publicly traded securities of Wireless in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 21, 2007 the Court ordered the lawsuits consolidated for all purposes under case no. 07cv482 BTM (NLS), and allowed a consolidated complaint to be filed. On August 8, 2007, the Court appointed the Laborers Fund as Lead Plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Coughlin Stoia) and Johnson & Perkinson as co-lead counsel.

On November 19, 2007, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. [Doe. No. 29.] The Court granted several joint requests for extensions of time for Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint. Defendants have not answered, moved to dismiss or otherwise responded to the Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint alleges that before and throughout the Settlement Class Period, Defendants engaged in a stock option backdating scheme where they granted themselves and their colleagues millions of under-priced options to purchase Wireless stock. H 2.2 Lead Plaintiff asserts that besides being illegal, this alleged backdating violates numerous laws, the Company’s internal policy for pricing stock options at the fair market value of the Company’s stock price on the day of the grant and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) governing the recognition of compensation expenses.

According to Lead Plaintiff, Wireless admitted that from March 1998 through December 2003, executives at Wireless granted undisclosed stock options at extremely low prices to themselves and others, by backdating the stock option grants to dates where the Company’s stock price was traded at a lower value than the date upon which the option was actually granted. 1Í 6. In the September 11, 2007 Restatement, Wireless admitted that a substantial number of its 1998-2003 stock options grants were backdated and that certain of its former executive officers and employees intentionally engaged in the backdating scheme. H 7.

Lead Plaintiff alleges that by granting backdated options, Defendants materially understated its expenses and falsely overstated its income by $48.6 million. 118. In total, Plaintiff alleges that the backdating scheme caused Wireless to overstate its net income from 1995-2005 by more than 51%. 118. Lead Plaintiff also alleges the lack of proper accounting procedures required by GAAP allowed Defendants to inflate the Company’s assets, income, financial performance and stock price during the Settlement Class Period.

Discovery and Settlement Negotiations.

In investigating the prosecution of this case, Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel (1) reviewed Wireless’ SEC filings, annual reports and other public statements; (2) consulted with experts; (3) interviewed and communicated with confidential witnesses; and (4) researched the law applicable to the asserted claims and defenses in this ease. On January 10, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with the Honorable Daniel L. Weinstein (Ret.). The parties exchanged mediation briefs and presented their respective views regarding the merits of the action, including the claims, defenses and damages sought. The parties did not reach a settlement during the mediation. One week later, however, Judge Weinstein issued a mediator’s proposal to settle the case for $4.5 million in cash. On March 17, 2008, both sides agreed to the material terms of the Settlement, including class certification for settlement purposes, payment of $4.5 million in cash in exchange for a mutually agreeable [610]*610release, and funds deposited into an escrow account by July 15, 2008. On May 6, 2008, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding that set forth the terms of the settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel concluded that the substantial expense and time necessary to prosecute the action through trial, appeals and other potential proceedings, the significant uncertainties in predicting the outcome of the litigation, and the substantial likelihood the Settlement Class would not recover more than the recovery in the settlement, lead them to conclude that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class.

Discussion

Rule 23 and Class Action Settlement.

Parties may settle a class action before class certification and stipulate that a defined class be conditionally certified for settlement purposes. See, e.g., Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.2003). A conditionally-certified class must still satisfy Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements. See id.

Deciding whether to approve a proposed class action settlement is generally a two-step process. At the preliminary approval stage, the court “should make a preliminary determination that the proposed class satisfies the criteria set out in Rule 23(a) and at least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b).” Fed. Judicial Ctr., Manual for Complex Litigation, § 21.633 (4th ed.2004). The court then approves the form and manner of notice and sets a final fairness hearing, where it will make a final determination on the fairness of the class settlement. See id.

A court may approve a settlement that would bind class members only after a final fairness hearing and finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2); see Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). When approving a settlement, a court must ensure that notice is made in a “reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(1).

To make the ultimate determination of whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate requires evaluating several factors, including:

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

Related

Dunsmore v. State of California
S.D. California, 2025
Bloom v. City of San Diego
S.D. California, 2024
Johnson v. Aljian
257 F.R.D. 587 (C.D. California, 2009)
Wiener v. Dannon Co.
255 F.R.D. 658 (C.D. California, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 F.R.D. 607, 2008 WL 4146126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wireless-facilities-inc-securities-litigation-ii-casd-2008.