Jander v. International Business Machines Corporation et al
| Larry W. Jander |
| International Business Machines Corporation, Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, Richard Carroll, Michael Schroeter and Robert Weber |
| 1:2015cv03781 |
| May 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| William H. Pauley |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
146
ORDER re: 144 MOTION to Approve disbursal of unclaimed settlement funds . filed by Larry W. Jander. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that any party wishing to be heard on the Recusal Notice filed by Judge McMahon, including speci fically with respect to the Settlement Disbursement Orders, shall file a letter not to exceed three pages on or before 4:00pm on July 25, 2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party wishing to be heard on the Deposit Letter shall file a letter not to exceed three pages on or before 4:00pm on July 25, 2022. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 7/25/2022) (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 7/18/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
145
NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel, as you know this matter was assigned to me after Judge Pauley's untimely death last summer. Shortly before he died, Judge Pauley had signed the order preliminarily approving the settlement of this case. I granted the motion to give final approval to the settlement on July 22, 2021 (Docket #135). After that point, there remained nothing to be done except various administrative matters. And I have entered two orders - one on January 6, 2022 and one on February 24, 2022 - disbursing the previously approved settlement funds. It seems that my elaborate conflict checking system has failed me in the instance of this case. My husband purchased stock in IBM on December 21, 2021 - many months after I had approved th e settlement, but shortly before I signed the disbursement orders that were contemplated by the approved settlement. My deputy clerk and my outside accountant picked up on an IBM case that was on my docket and I immediately recused myself therefrom. However, they did not pick up on this case - possibly because it is the Retirement Plans Committee that is a party, not IBM itself; more likely because the Clerk of Court marked the case "closed" on July 22, 2021 (Docket #135) - which means it did not appear on the list of open cases that we check regularly for conflicts. I noticed this for the first time this morning, when plaintiffs presented me with an order seeking approval to deposit the unclaimed settlement funds. As neither my h usband nor I has any financial interest in the IBM Retirement Plans, which are entities separate and apart from the corporation, I recognize that, technically, no financial conflict of interest was created by my husband's purchase of IBM stock f ive months after the approval of the settlement. Frankly, I don't even think that there could be any reasonable appearance of impropriety in my entering further purely administrative orders in this closed case; the terms of the settlement were a lready agreed to and approved by the court, and whatever impact the settlement might have had on IBM's stock (I doubt there was any) occurred last July, months before my husband owned the stock. However, had anyone on my ace conflicts team caugh t this (I do not rely on the Clerk of Court for this purpose), I would likely have asked the Assignment Committee to reassign the case, so that another judge could enter the administrative orders that were needed to conclude the settlement. I would a t the very least have consulted with you to see whether you thought it advisable that I recuse myself in the circumstances. I can think of no way to rescind the two orders approving the disbursement of funds that were entered after my husband's purchase of IBM stock; the money has already been disbursed and I doubt that you want to claw it back. That said, at this point, the prudent course is to ask the Assignment Committee to reassign the case for the entry of any further administrative or ders that may be required in order to effectuate the rest of the settlement. I will refer your July 11, 2022 letter motion to that judge for signature. If you wish, you may ask the newly assigned judge to review the disbursement motions that I grante d last January and February and enter new orders authorizing the disbursement of funds nunc pro tunc. I apologize for this. And I emphasize again that there was no conflict - my husband owned no IBM stock - when I gave final approval to the settlement last July. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 7/14/2022) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL (kv)
|
|
Filing
143
ORDER granting 142 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/24/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER granting 140 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/6/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
139
MEMDO ENDORSEMENT on 138 granting Motion for Disbursement of Funds. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/15/2021) (ama) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER granting 136 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/8/2021) (rro) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
135
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 122 Motion for Settlement; granting 124 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 131 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for final approval of the settlement is granted and the mot ion for an award of attorneys fees and expenses and case contribution award is granted. The Proposed Settlement and the Plan of Allocation are approved. In addition, Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,425,000, r epresenting 30% of the Settlement Fund. These attorneys fees may be disbursed from the CRIS account once 75% of the Net Settlement Fund has been distributed. Moreover, Class Counsel shall be reimbursed for $90,861.89 in litigation e xpenses forthwith. Finally, Jander and Waksman may each be disbursed $10,000 forthwith. Additionally, on July 20, 2021, Defendants moved, unopposed, for a disbursement of funds from the Qualified Settlement Fund in order to reimburse IBM for f ees associated with the engagement of an Independent Fiduciary to review the Settlement pursuant to the Amended Settlement Stipulation. Defendants' motion is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to mark this case closed. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 7/22/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
133
NOTICE: Please take notice that the dial-in information for the Fairness Hearing taking place at 11:00 AM on July 21, 2021 in the above captioned matter has changed. Class members, press, and the public may dial in at (866) 342-8588; access code 55188. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 7/20/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
111
ORDER granting 110 Letter Motion to Stay re: 110 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Stay Pending Settlement addressed to Judge William H. Pauley, III from Samuel E. Bonderoff dated 02/22/2021. Application granted. All pending deadlines in th is case are stayed. The parties shall confer and submit to this Court a proposed schedule for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and final approval of the matter by March 8, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 2/25/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER: On September 9, 2020, this Court conducted a teleconference concerning Defendants' motion for a continuation of the stay in this action. (See ECF No. 87.) For the reasons stated on the record, Defendants' motion is denied and the stay is lifted. The parties shall submit a proposed discovery schedule by September 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 9/11/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER: The parties are directed to file a joint letter by August 24, 2020, explaining their respective positions regarding how this action should proceed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 8/10/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
56
OPINION & ORDER re: 43 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. filed by Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, Richard Carroll, Martin Schroeter, Robert Weber: The Retir ement Plans Committee of IBM, Richard Carroll, Martin Schroeter, and Robert Weber (together, the "Defendants") move to dismiss the Second Amended Class Complaint (the "Complaint"). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 43, and mark this case as closed. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 9/29/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
34
OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this case. Plaintiffs shall advise this Court within 30 days if they intend to file a Second Amended Complaint, at which point this Court would restore this case to the docket. So ordered. re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, Richard Carroll, International Business Machines Corporation, Michael Schroeter, Robert Weber. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 9/7/2016) (rjm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
