Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ace Marine Rigging & Supply, Inc v. Virginia Harbor Services

January 19, 2012

ACE MARINE RIGGING & SUPPLY, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIRGINIA HARBOR SERVICES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: The Honorable George Wu

RULE 54(b) FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER AS TO: (1) VIRGINIA HARBOR SERVICES, INC., FENTEK MARINE SYSTEMS GMBH, ROBERT B. TAYLOR AND DONALD MURRAY; (2) MARINE FENDERS INTERNATIONAL AND GERALD THERMOS; (3) WATERMAN SUPPLY CO, INC. AND SEYMOUR WATERMAN; AND (4) MARITIME INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND JOHN DEATS Date: January 19, 2012 Time: 8:30 A.M.

Ctrm: 10

The Court has considered Plaintiff Ace Marine Rigging & Supply, Inc.'s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements with Defendants: (1) Virginia Harbor Services, Inc. ("VHS"), Fentek Marine Systems GmbH, Robert B. Taylor and Donald Murray ("VHS Defendants"); (2) Marine Fenders International and Gerald Thermos ("MFI Defendants); (3) Waterman Supply Co., Inc. and Seymour Waterman ("Waterman Defendants"); and (4) Maritime International, Inc. and John Deats ("Maritime Defendants") (collectively, the "Settling Defendants") and has held a duly-noticed final approval hearing on January 19, 2012. The Court expressly finds, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay, and therefore expressly directs the entry of Final Judgment as to the Settling Defendants:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation.

2. Terms used in this Final Judgment Order which are defined in the Settlement Agreements between the Plaintiff and the Settlement Classes on the one hand and the Settling Defendants on the other hand are, unless otherwise defined herein, used in this Final Judgment Order as defined in the Settlement Agreements.

3. The Court finds that the Foam-Filled Fenders and/or Buoys Settlements were based on vigorous arm's-length negotiations, which were undertaken in good faith by counsel with significant experience litigating antitrust class actions.

4. The Court finds that due and adequate notice was provided pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to all members of the Settlement Classes certified herein, notifying the Settlement Classes of, inter alia, the pendency of the above-captioned action and the proposed Foam-Filled Fenders and/or Buoys Settlements with the Settling Defendants. The notice provided was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and included individual notice by first-class mail to all members of the Settlement Classes who could be identified through reasonable effort as well as notice published in the Investor's Business Daily and in Business Wire. Notice fully complied in all respects with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process requirements of the Constitution of the United States.

5. With respect to the VHS Defendants Settlement Agreement, this Court certifies the following class for settlement purposes only:

All persons and entities (but excluding Defendants, their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and co-conspirators, United States federal government entities and the State of Florida and all Florida state and local government entities) who purchased Foam-Filled Fenders and/or Buoys in the United States directly from Settling Defendants, Named Co-Conspirators, any other Defendant or any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates at any time during the period from and including June 1, 2000 to and including December 31, 2005.

With respect to the MFI Defendants, Waterman Defendants and Maritime Defendants Settlement Agreements, the Court certifies the following class for settlement purposes only:

All persons and entities (but excluding Defendants, their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and co-conspirators and United States federal government entities) who purchased Foam-Filled Fenders and/or Buoys in the United States directly from Settling Defendants, Named Co-Conspirators, any other Defendant or any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates at any time during the period from and including June 1, 2000 to and including December 31, 2005.

6. For the purposes of this Order, "Foam-Filled Fenders" means structural protection marine fenders fabricated from an elastomer shell filled with closed-cell polyethelene foam, and related ancillary products, which are typically used as a cushion between ships and either fixed structures such as docks or piers, or floating structures such as other ships. "Foam-Filled Buoys" means buoys fabricated from an elastomer shell and filled with closed-cell polyethelene foam, and related ancillary products, which are used in a variety of applications, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.