Rubin v. Dickhoner

107 F.R.D. 354, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23966
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedSeptember 11, 1985
DocketNo. C-1-83-1721
StatusPublished

This text of 107 F.R.D. 354 (Rubin v. Dickhoner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rubin v. Dickhoner, 107 F.R.D. 354, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23966 (S.D. Ohio 1985).

Opinion

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND ADMINISTRATION

SPIEGEL, District Judge.

Upon review and consideration of the Stipulation of Settlement and the exhibits annexed thereto dated September 6, 1985, (the “Stipulation”), executed on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (“CG & E”), William H. Dickhoner, Earl A. Borgmann, B. John Yeager, Sanford M. Brooks, Donald I. Lowry, William S. Rowe, George C. Juilfs, Neil A. Armstrong, and Elmer R. Best (collectively the “individual defendants”), Henry J. Kaiser Company, Raymond Kaiser Engineers Inc., and Raymond International Inc. (also acting on behalf of Kaiser Engineers Inc. and Foothill Electric Company) (collectively “Kaiser”) in the above-cap'tioned litigation (the “Litigation”); upon consideration of all prior proceedings in the Litigation, including the order for class certification dated April 15, 1985, as amended, in which Plaintiffs were approved as representatives of a class of all purchasers of shares of CG & E common stock during the period November 24, 1981 through October 6, 1983, who continued to hold their shares until the end of said period (excluding CG & E, CG & E’s subsidiaries, the individual defendants, members of their immediate families, corporations, trusts or entities controlled by the individual defendants and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the defendants) (the “Class”); upon consideration of the agreement of Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and of defendants to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation (the proposed “Settlement”) which would have the effect of settling and dismissing, the Litigation upon the terms set forth in the Stipulation; and as a hearing on the proposed Settlement is necessary;

NOW, upon the application of Plaintiffs and Defendants, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The terms of the Stipulation, and the Settlement provided for therein, are preliminarily approved, subject to further consid[355]*355eration thereof at the Settlement Hearing described at paragraph 9 of this Order.

2. In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, as soon as practicable after the entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall, as provided for in the Stipulation, mail by first class mail the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Complete Settlement of Class Action for 13,990,000 Dollars Plus Interest and Settlement Hearing (the “Notice”) and the Proof of Claim and Release form (the “Proof of Claim”) substantially in the forms annexed to the Stipulation as Exhibits “E” and “D”, respectively, to all members of the Class (“Class Members”) at their last known addresses appearing on the records of the transfer agent of CG & E. In addition, Plaintiffs shall cause the publication of a Publication Notice substantially in the form annexed to the Stipulation as Exhibit “F” twice, in two successive weeks, in the National Edition of The Wall Street Journal and in the Cincinnati Enquirer at least 30 days prior to the Settlement Hearing. Plaintiffs shall further mail the letter to All Brokerage Firms, Banks, Institutions and Other Nominees (the “Letter”) substantially in the form annexed to the Stipulation as Exhibit “G”. All such nominees who held common shares of CG & E of record for Class Members, who have not previously supplied Plaintiffs’ Counsel with the names and addresses of such Class Members, are directed either (a) to supply Plaintiffs’ Counsel with a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial holders; or (b) to forward the Notice and Proof of Claim to the beneficial owners of those shares and to submit a sworn statement to Plaintiffs’ Counsel at a Post Office Box address to be designated by Plaintiffs’ Counsel as provided in paragraph 6, below, that they have done so, which statement shall contain a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial holders. Such nominees may seek reimbursement of their reasonable expenses in complying with this Order. Additional copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim for transmittal to beneficial owners shall be made available upon request to Plaintiffs’ Counsel at a Post Office Box address to be designated by Plaintiffs’ Counsel as provided in paragraph 6, below.

3. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall serve and file a sworn statement evidencing compliance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Order concerning the mailing and publication of said notices and the mailing of said letters and shall also advise the Court of the number of notices returned, if any.

4. The Notice to Class Members in compliance with the provisions set forth in paragraph 2 above is hereby found to be the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice of the Order Certifying the Class, the Settlement, and the Settlement Hearing to all persons entitled to receive such notice as members of the Class, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. Any Class Member wishing exclusion from the Class shall mail a request for exclusion (“Request for Exclusion”) to the post office box to be maintained by counsel for Plaintiffs, as provided below, postmarked not later than December 6, 1985. Such request shall set forth: (i) the name and address of the Class Member; (ii) the type, number or amount and dates of trades of CG & E stock during the Class Period; and (iii) the name and address of the person in whose name the stock was registered. Requests for Exclusion shall be deemed to have been made in each and every capacity in which the person requesting the exclusion is acting. Any Class Member who does not properly and timely request exclusion shall be included in the Class and shall be bound by any Final Judgment entered in this Litigation pursuant to the terms thereof.

6. For purposes of effectuating the Settlement and the notice provided for in paragraph 2 hereof, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall lease and maintain a Post Office Box of adequate size for the return of Proofs of Claims and receipt of Requests for Exclusion. All Notices to the Class shall desig[356]*356nate said Post Office Box as the return address for the respective designated purposes. Plaintiffs’ Counsel or their agents shall be responsible for the receipt of all responses to Notices to the Class and shall preserve all entries of appearance, Proofs of Claim, Requests for Exclusion, and any and all other written communications from Class Members, the Nominees or any other person in response to said notice until further order of the Court. All written communications received from Class. Members or Nominees and all written responses to inquiries by Class Members or Nominees shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection and copying by Defendants’ Counsel in this action. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall file with the Court a list of the names and addresses of the Class Members submitting Requests for Exclusion and shall furnish Defendants’ counsel with copies of all Requests for Exclusion promptly after their receipt, but in no event later than five (5) business days following the last day on which Requests for Exclusion, must be submitted.

7.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 F.R.D. 354, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-dickhoner-ohsd-1985.