Stoller v. Baldwin-United Corp.

650 F. Supp. 341, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20364
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedSeptember 16, 1986
DocketCiv. A. C-1-82-1438, C-1-83-1990
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 650 F. Supp. 341 (Stoller v. Baldwin-United Corp.) 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
Stoller v. Baldwin-United Corp., 650 F. Supp. 341, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20364 (S.D. Ohio 1986).

Opinion

*342 ORDER

DAVID S. PORTER, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiffs and various defendants having agreed and stipulated to the compromise and dismissal of the above entitled actions (the “Stoller action” and “Bedel action,” hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as “the Actions”) upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulations of Settlement dated as of January 9, 1986 and September 15, 1986 (the “Stipulations”);

The parties to the Stipulations having applied to the Court for an Order pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure approving the Stipulations; and

The Court having read and considered the Stipulation of Settlement, the proposed form of notice, the proposed forms of Instructions, and Proofs of Claim and Covenants not to Sue;

The Court having on June 4, 1985 directed, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Stoller action may proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons other than a limited group that was expressly excluded who, between December 14, 1981 and March 29, 1983, purchased Baldwin-United Corporation (“BU”) common or preferred stock, BU 10% subordinated debentures due 2009 and/or D.H. Baldwin Company (“DHB”) debentures due 1994;

The Settling Defendants, solely for the purposes of the Stipulations, having consented to the certification of a class in the Bedel Action which is composed of all persons who acquired DHB debentures due 1994 prior to April 19, 1983 pursuant to the registration statement and/or prospectus; and

It appearing to the Court that the proposed settlement embodied in the aforesaid Stipulations may be a fair, reasonable and adequate one; and

The parties having consented to the entry of this Order;

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Court hereby reconfirms its Order of June 4, 1985 which determined that the Stoller action proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who, between December 14, 1981 and March 29, 1983, purchased in the open market BU common or preferred stock, BU 10% subordinated debentures due 2009 and/or DHB debentures due 1994. Excluded from the Class are all defendants, the officers and directors of the corporate defendants, as well as any entity in which any of the corporate or individual defendants has had or had since the commencement of the class period, a controlling interest, together with legal representatives, successors in interest, heirs and assigns of excluded parties.

2. Subject to the terms and conditions of one of the Stipulations, the Bedel action shall, for the purposes of implementing that proposed Settlement only, be maintained as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), with Ralph Bedel, Trustee, as the class representative, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased DHB debentures due 1994 prior to April 19, 1983 pursuant to the registration statement and/or prospectus. Excluded from this Class are the Settling Defendants, including BU and DHB, NIPIC, NILIC, Balunit, members of the immediate families of the Settling Defendants, the partners, associates and employees of NIPIC, NILIC, Balunit, BU, DHB, or the Settling Defendants, any entity in which any of them has had or had since the commencement of the *343 Class Period, a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors in interest, or assigns.

3. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement.

4. A hearing (the “Hearing”) shall be held before the Court in the Actions on December 22,1986, at 2 PM in Room 836 of the United States Post Office & Courthouse, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 to determine (a) whether the Settlements as proposed in the Stipulations are fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court, and (b) whether the Actions should be dismissed on the merits with prejudice as to the Settling Defendants, as provided in the Stipulations and (c) to determine the application(s) of Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel for experts’ and attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in the Actions (or, if such application^) are not heard at the Hearing, to reserve jurisdiction and set a date for subsequent hearings on such application^)).

5. Within fifteen (15) days following the day on which this Order is filed with the Clerk of this Court, the Settling Defendants (as defined in Paragraph 1.2 of one of the Stipulations), other than Balunit, BU and DHB, which have previously deposited their settlement fund in a restricted account at Marine Midland Bank, shall pay the sum of $9,775,000 to plaintiffs, depositing said amount in The Fifth Third Bank, pursuant to the Master Escrow Agreement annexed to that Settlement Stipulation. This fund shall be administered in accordance with the Master Escrow Agreement. This sum, plus all interest and income earned thereon, shall become part of the “Settlement Fund” identified in Paragraph 2 of one of the Stipulations and no part of the Settlement Fund shall be returned to the defendants except as specifically set forth in the Stipulations.

6. Within fifteen (15) days following the day on which this Order is filed with the Clerk of this Court, the Settling Defendants, other than Balunit, BU and DHB, shall deposit the sum of $300,000 in The Fifth Third Bank, pursuant to the Master Escrow Agreement annexed to the Settlement Stipulation. This fund shall be administered in accordance with the Master Escrow Agreement. This sum, plus all interest and income earned thereon, shall constitute the “Administration Fund” identified in Paragraph 4 of one of the Stipulations and no part of the Administration Fund shall be returned to the defendants except as specifically set forth in that Stipulation.

7. The Settling Defendants, to the extent not previously done, have agreed, as provided in the Stipulations, to cause their transfer records and other documents necessary to identify the names and addresses of Class Members to be provided to counsel for the Settling Plaintiffs and such items shall be provided on or before September 30, 1986.

8. The plaintiffs or their designated representative shall cause notice to be given members of the Bedel and Stoller classes concerning the pendency of the Actions, the proposed Settlements, the applications of Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel for experts’ and attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the holding of the Hearing. The notice shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, which form is hereby approved (the “Notice”), and shall be given in the following manner.

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

Related

Goldenberg v. Marriott PLP Corp.
33 F. Supp. 2d 434 (D. Maryland, 1998)
Silber v. Mabon
18 F.3d 1449 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Bedel v. Thompson
956 F.2d 1164 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
McCracken v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
445 N.W.2d 375 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 1989)
Herbst v. Gulf Oil Corp.
112 F.R.D. 383 (S.D. New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
650 F. Supp. 341, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoller-v-baldwin-united-corp-ohsd-1986.