City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. Metlife, Inc. et al
| City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System |
| Metlife, Inc., C. Robert Henrikson, William J. Wheeler, Peter M. Carlson, Steven A. Kandarian and William J. Mullaney |
| 1:2012cv00256 |
| January 12, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Lewis A. Kaplan |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 |
| None |
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
432
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Lead counsel's application for attorneys' fees is granted in accordance with the following: lead counsel are awarded $19,528,192.10 in attorneys' fees and $1,856.169.03 in expenses. Interest is deeme d as inappropriate in light of the generous multiplier applied to the adjusted lodestar. Lead plaintiff's request for an award of $10,880 is denied. The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. 407. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 6/15/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
429
ORDER APPROVING PLAN OF ALLOCATION: This matter having come before the Court on April 14, 2021, on Lead Plaintiffs motion for approval of the Plan of Allocation of the Settlement proceeds in the above-captioned action; the Court ha ving considered all papers filed and proceedings had herein and otherwise being fully informed in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation o f Settlement dated June 8, 2020 (the "Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. 2. Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to all persons who are Members of the Classes who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them of the Pl an of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all persons and entities who are Members of the Classes to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation. 3. The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants which is set forth in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") sent to Members of the Classes provides a fair and re asonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund established by the Stipulation among the Members of the Classes, with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and necessity. 4. This Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair and reasonable and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/14/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
417
ORDER: In order to provide additional information that the Court considers appropriate for making an informed judgment on the fee application, plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the following: 1. A restated summary lodestar spread sheet in the general form of Williams Decl. Ex. A but, for each individual for whom compensation is sought, (a) the number of hours at each hourly rate in effect for that individual at the time the hours were devoted and (b) a summary line reflecting the total hours and the individual's blended historical hourly rate over the course of the litigation. 2. An analysis of the categories of work for which compensation is sought, the hours devoted to each category by each individual for whom compensation is sought, and the "lodestar" for that category of work by each individual based on historical rates. For the guidance of counsel, the Court found the categories used in In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Secur. Litig., 94 F. Supp.2d 517, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd sub nom. De Valerio v. Glinski, 673 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2016), to have been helpful. The Court, however, recognizes that other sets of categories also might be helpful or more helpful as well as more easily employed. It is open to another approach. Counsel, however, would be well advised to inform the Court in advance of the manner in which they propose to supply this information. 3. The Court notes that biographical information has not been provided for all pe rsons for whom compensation has been sought. That deficiency should be remedied. 4. It is the burden of plaintiffs counsel to establish the reasonableness of the hourly rates on which the lodestar is based. That involves, among other considerations , the time keepers' titles and roles (including whether persons performing similar roles typically are billed to paying clients on an hourly basis), years and quality of experience, and market rates for similar professionals, among other factors. Counsel would be well advised to address these and related issues. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 3/30/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
406
ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(l) AND PERMITTING NOTICE TO THE CLASSES: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation and in accordance with Fed. R. Ciy. P. 23(e)(l) find s that the proposed Settlement warrants the issuance of notice of the proposed Settlement to Members of the Classes. A hearing shall be held before this Court on April 14, 2021 at 10 a.m. (the "Final Approval Hearing"), at the Daniel Pa trick Moynihan United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Classes and should be approved by the Court; to determine whether a Judgment as provided in 1.13 of the Stipulation should be entered; to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocati on should be approved; to determine the amount of attorneys' fees, costs, charges and expenses that should be awarded to Lead Counsel; to determine any award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Private Securities L itigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"); to hear any objections by Members of the Classes to: (i) the Settlement or Plan of Allocation, (ii) the award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, and (iii) an award to Lead Pla intiff pursuant to the PSLRA; and to consider such other matters the Court deems appropriate. The Court may adjourn the Final Approval Hearing or decide to hold the Final Approval Hearing telephonically without further individual notice to the Cla sses. The Court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release, substantially in the forms annexed to docket item 404 as Exhibits and 2, respe ctively. The Court approves the form of the Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Summary Notice"), substantially in the form annexed to item 404 Exhibit 3. Not later than Jan. 15, 2021 (the "Notice Date"), the Claims Administrator shall cause a copy of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release, substantially in the forms annexed hereto, to be mailed by First-Class Mail to all Members of the Classes who can be identified with reasonable effort and to b e posted on the case-designated website, www.MetLifeSecuritiesLitigation.com. Not later than Jan. 15, 2021 the Claims Administrator shall cause the Summary Notice to be published once in The Wall Street Journal, and once over a national newswire service. Members of the Classes who wish to participate in the Settlement shall complete and submit a Proof of Claim and Release in accordance with the instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Proofs of Claim and Release must be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than Feb. 26, 2021. Any Member of the Classes may appear at the Final Approval Hearing and object if he, she, or it has any reason why the proposed Settlement of the Litigation shou ld not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, or why a judgment should not be entered thereon, why the Plan of Allocation should not be approved, or why attorneys' fees, together with costs, charges and expenses should not be awarded or awards to Lead Plaintiff should not be awarded; provided, however, that no Member of the Classes or any other Person shall be heard at the Final Approval Hearing or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed Sett lement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered thereon approving the same, or the order approving the Plan of Allocation, or any attorneys' fees, together with costs and expenses to be awarded to Lead Counsel or any award to Lead Plaintif f, unless the Person objecting has filed said written objections and copies of any papers and briefs with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and mailed copies thereof by first-class mail to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Post Montgomery Center, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104 and Maeve O'Connor, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 no later than Feb. 26, 2021. Al l papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and any application by Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs, charges and expenses and awards to Lead Plaintiff shall be filed and served no later than Mar. 26, 2021, and any reply papers shall be filed and served not later than Apr. 3, 2021. (And as further set forth herein.) IT IS SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 4/14/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/24/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
392
ORDER denying without prejudice 257 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice 267 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying without prejudice 273 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [DI 273], MetLife defendants' motion for summary judgment [DI 257], and the underwriter defendants' motion for summary judgment [DI 267] is denied without prejudice to reinstatement if the settlement agreement is not signed, or if signed, is not approved by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 3/13/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 96 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, filed by Bank of America Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc; re: 99 MOTION to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, filed by Peter M. Carlson, Cheryl W. Grise, William J. Wheeler, Lulu C. Wang, Eduardo Castro-Wright, William J. Mullane y, James M. Kilts, C. Robert Henrikson, Hugh B. Price, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Kenton J. Sicchitano, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, David Satcher, Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., Steven A. Kandarian, Catherine R. Kinney, Metlife, Inc. The defendants&# 039; motions to dismiss the TAC [DI 96, DI 99] are granted to the extent that (1) all claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, (2) all claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act, and (3) all claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securitie s Act except those based upon (a) MetLife's alleged omission of material facts about its inquiry into or knowledge concerning its implicit representations about the adequacy of the Company's IBNR reserves, and (b) MetLife's alleged omission of material facts about the pending state investigations are dismissed. The motions to dismiss are denied in all remaining respects. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/10/2016) (kl)
|
|
Filing
90
OPINION re: 86 MOTION to Dismiss / Notice of the MetLife Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Peter M. Carlson, Cheryl W. Grise, William J. Wheeler, Lulu C. Wang, Eduardo Castro-Wright, Wil liam J. Mullaney, James M. Kilts, C. Robert Henrikson, Hugh B. Price, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Kenton J. Sicchitano, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, David Satcher, Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., Steven A. Kandarian, Catherine R. Kinney, Metlife, Inc., [85 ] MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Bank of America Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Wells Fargo Secur ities, LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. The defendants' motions to dismiss the SAC [DI 85, 86] are granted to the extent that(1) all claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, (2) all claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act, and (3) all claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act except those based upon the alleged misstatements of mortality ratios are dismissed. They are denied in that remaining respect. (As further set forth in this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/11/2015) (mro)
|
|
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Bank of America Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Goldman Sach s & Co., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 42 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Peter M. Carlson, Cheryl W. Grise, William J. Wheeler, Lulu C. Wang, Eduardo Castro-Wright, William J. Mullaney, James M. Kilts, C. Robert Henrikson, Hugh B. Price, Sylvia Mathe ws Burwell, Kenton J. Sicchitano, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, David Satcher, Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., Steven A. Kandarian, Catherine R. Kinney, Metlife, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motions [DI 38, 42] to the extent they se ek dismissal of the Exchange Act claims, dismissal of the Section 11 claims against Kandarian and Mullaney, dismissal of the Section 12(a)(2) claims as to the Individual and Director Defendants and dismissal of the Section 15 claim against Castro-Wright. The motions are denied in all other respects. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/28/2013) (mro)
|
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.
