UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
October 14, 2011
IN RE STATIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (SRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Claudia Wilken Northern District of California District Court Judge Oakland Division
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SAMSUNG AND CYPRESS SETTLEMENTS AND PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
This Document Relates to:
ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
Hearing Date: October 6, 2011 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken
Indirect Purchaser ("IP") Plaintiffs' request for final approval of the settlements entered into 21 with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics 22 America, Inc. and Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (collectively "Settling Defendants") and 23 preliminarily approved by this Court on February 11, 2011 and March 11, 2011, respectively, 24 (collectively, the "Settlements") (see Docket Entry ("DE") 1324, 1329) came on for hearing before 25 this Court on October 6, 2011 (the "Fairness Hearing"). This Court has considered the relief 26 requested, the supporting papers, and all other arguments presented at the hearing. Due and 27 adequate notice having been given, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds that: 28 2 relating thereto, including all members of the Class. 3 2. For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise set forth herein, the Court adopts and 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the request and all matters 4 incorporates the definitions contained in each of the Settlements.
3. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following settlement class (the "Class"): All persons and entities residing in the 7 United States who, from November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006, purchased SRAM in the 8 United States indirectly from Defendants. The Class excludes the following persons and entities: the 9 Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any 10 10 Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any 11 11 Defendant; any federal, state or local entities; and any judicial officer presiding over this action and 12 12 the members of her immediate family and judicial staff. 13
4. The Court further finds that the prerequisites to a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied for settlement purposes in that: 15 15
(a) there are thousands of class members and therefore joinder of all members is 14 14 16 16 impracticable; 17
(b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over 18 18 individual issues; 19 19
(c) the claims or defenses of the class plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of 20 20 the class; and 21 21 22 22 have retained counsel experienced in complex antitrust class action litigation who have and will 23 23 continue to adequately represent the class. 24 24 25 25 requested exclusion from the Class and, therefore, are excluded. 26 26
6. Due and adequate notice of the Settlements and Plan of Distribution was provided to
(d) the class plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and
5. Jimmy Malo, Florbel Segura and William F. Steigman have timely and validly the Class, including in notice of the Settlements and Plan of Distribution that was disseminated via 28 28 direct mail as well as by publications in newspapers, Sunday supplements, consumer magazines, internet campaign and press releases, as well as postings on the website established for this case, 2 www.indirectsramcase.com. Such notice was given in accordance with this Court's Order 3 Preliminarily Approving the Plan of Distribution and Notice Plan and Setting Fairness Hearing. See 4 DE 1361. Such notice adequately advised the Class of the Settlements, of their right to exclude 5 themselves from the Class or to object to the Settlements and Plan of Distribution. The manner of 6 giving notice provided in this case fully satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 23 and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted 8 due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. A full and fair opportunity was provided to 9 the members of the Class to be heard regarding the Settlements and Plan of Distribution.
of Distribution were filed. All objections are hereby overruled on the grounds that the objectors 12 12 have failed to submit proof or otherwise establish that they are members of the Class, and they 13 13 therefore lack standing to challenge the Settlements and Plan of Distribution. Additionally, the 14 14 objections are otherwise without merit for the reasons set forth in IP Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Samsung and Cypress Settlements and Distribution Plan, as argued at 16 16 the Fairness Hearing, and for the reasons stated by the Court at the Fairness Hearing. 17 17
7. Four objections (Cochran, Foligno, Aune and Hallford) to the Settlements and/or Plan 8. Cochran and Foligno filed their objections on August 25, 2011. On August 29, 2011, IP Plaintiffs sought discovery from Cochran and Foligno regarding, inter alia, their membership in 19 19 the Settlement Class and their standing to object to the Settlements, Plan of Distribution and request 20 20 for attorneys' fees. Cochran and Foligno objected to the discovery, IP Plaintiffs moved to compel 21 21 (see DE 1386-1 -- 1386-4), and Cochran and Foligno opposed the motion (see DE 1391). On 22 22 September 23, 2011, this Court granted the motion to compel, and ordered Cochran and Foligno to 23 23 appear for depositions and produce documents to IP Plaintiffs by October 3, 2011. DE 1393. 24 24 Cochran and Foligno refused to comply with and thereby violated the Order. Neither Cochran nor 25 25 Foligno, nor counsel representing them, appeared at the Fairness Hearing. Cochran's and Foligno's 26 26 failure to appear for a deposition or otherwise provide the Court-ordered discovery provides a 27 27 separate and alternative basis for overruling Cochran's and Foligno's objections, and the Court 28 28 overrules the objections on that basis as well.
9. The Settlements and Plan of Distribution are, in all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class. Accordingly, the Court hereby grants final approval of the Settlements and 3 the Plan of Distribution. 4 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.