United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
JAMES KENNEY, Derivatively on Behalf of FINISAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
EITAN GERTEL, JERRY S. RAWLS, KURT ADZEMA, ROGER C. FERGUSON, ROBERT N. STEPHENS, THOMAS E. PARDUN, MICHAEL C. CHILD, and DOMINIQUE TREMPONT, Defendants, and FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS (190264) KEVIN A. SEELY
(199982) ASHLEY R. RIFKIN (246602) STEVEN M. McKANY (SBN
271405) Attorneys for Plaintiff
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL
JUDGMENT
JUDGE:
HON. EDWARD J. DAVILA
This
matter came before the Court for hearing on June 27, 2019, to
consider approval of the proposed settlement
("Settlement") set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated February 14, 2019, and the exhibits thereto
(the "Stipulation"). The Court has reviewed and
considered all documents, evidence, objections (if any), and
arguments presented in support of or against the Settlement.
Good cause appearing therefore, the Court enters this
Judgment.
IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
1. This
Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation, and all capitalized terms used herein shall have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation.
2. This
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action,
including all matters necessary to effectuate the Settlement,
and over all Settling Parties to the Action.
3. The
Court finds that the Notice provided to Finisar shareholders
constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances. The Notice fully satisfied the requirements of
Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
requirements of due process.
4. The
Court finds that the Settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of Finisar and its shareholders.
5. The
Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all of
the Released Claims against Released Persons, are dismissed
with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own
costs, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.
6. Upon
the Effective Date, the Releasing Persons shall be deemed to
have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims)
against the Released Persons and any and all derivative
claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the
defense, settlement, or resolution of the Action against the
Released Persons, Nothing herein shall in any way impair or
restrict the rights of any Settling Party to enforce the
terms of the Stipulation.
7.
Except as set forth in paragraph 6.3 in the Stipulation, upon
the Effective Date, each of the Defendants shall be deemed to
have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Counsel from all claims
(including claims related to Unknown Claims), arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with the institution,
prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the
Action or the Released Claims. Nothing herein shall in any
way impair or restrict the rights of any Settling Party to
enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
8.
During the course of the litigation, all parties and their
respective counsel at all times complied with the
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and all other similar laws or statutes, including
Section 128.7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
9. The
Court hereby approves the sum of $190, 000 for the payment of
Plaintiffs Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses
("Fee and Expense Amount"), and finds that the Fee
and Expense Amount is fair and reasonable. No other fees,
costs, or expenses may be awarded to Plaintiffs Counsel in
connection with the Settlement. The Fee and Expense Amount
shall be distributed in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation.
10. The
Court hereby approves the service award of $2, 000 for
Plaintiff to be paid from Plaintiffs Counsel's Fee and
Expense Amount in recognition of Plaintiffs ...