LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

POOLER v KENNEDY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 16,214, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: POOLER, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00016214, Fee, Settlement, Del, Proposed Settlement, Reasonableness, Expenses, Biostar Transaction, Derivative Claim, Supr, Cortech, Shareholders Litigation, Ottensoser, Directors, Class Claim, Fingerhut, Seth Ottensoser, Financial Benefit, Milberg Weiss Bershad, Weiss Bershad Hynes, Lerach Llp, Pennsylvania Plaza, Public Policy Considerations, American Home Shield, Amended Complaint , ContentID: 120241038

Case Documents
1 2000-04-04 PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 103212
17 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 17 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FEE
SETTLEMENT
COUNSEL
LITIGATION
DEL
COURT
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
REASONABLENESS
PLAINTIFF
ATTORNEYS
EXPENSES
BIOSTAR TRANSACTION
DERIVATIVE CLAIM
SUPR
CORTECH
SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
OTTENSOSER
DIRECTORS
CLASS CLAIM
FINGERHUT
SETH OTTENSOSER
FINANCIAL BENEFIT
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
WEISS BERSHAD HYNES
LERACH LLP
PENNSYLVANIA PLAZA
PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
AMERICAN HOME SHIELD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
              IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                                 IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY


TIM POOLER,

                                     Plaintiff,

         -against-                                                       C.A. No. 16214NC

DONALD KENNEDY, KENNETH R. LYNN,
ALLEN MISHER, BERT FINGERHUT and
CHARLES COHEN,                                                                             __



                                     Defendants.

         -and-

CORTECH, INC.,                                                                             :
                                                                                                 - 


                           Nominal Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------- X

             PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
              AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

                                                                ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS  &
                                                                     GODDESS, P.A.
                                                                Suite 140 1, Mellon Bank Center
                                                                9 19 N. Market Street
                                                                P.O. Box 1070
                                                                Wilmington+&jJ,  19899
                                                                (302) 656-4433
                                                                Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES
 & LERACH LLP
Steven G. Schulman
U. Seth Ottensoser
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, New York 10 119
(212) 594-5300

SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
  • AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP
  • Steven G. Schulman U. Seth Ottensoser
  • One Pennsylvania Plaza New York,
  • The Efforts Of Counsel.
  • The Contingent Nature Of the Fee
  • Public Policy Considerations.
  • In re Advanced Mammogranhv &stems, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A.
  • Allied Artists Pictures Corporation v. Baron, Del.
  • Supr., 413 A.2d 878,.
  • Braunschweiger v. American Home Shield Corn.,
  • Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief and the accompanying Affidavit of U. Seth
  • Ottensoser, Esquire, in support of: the proposed settlement of the
  • and expenses has been duly given to all Cortech stockholders specified in the Court's
  • This financial benefit fully justifies this Court's approval of the proposed Settlement as
  • BioStar transaction constituted a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Cortech's directors.
  • perceived threat to the Individual Defendants' control of the Company by Asset Value Fund L.P.
  • complaint, which was brought as a class claim, alleged that, in the wake of the failed BioStar
  • The allegations in the amended complaint were consistent with charges leveled by AVFL,
  • negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the derivative claim asserted by plaintiff
  • With one exception, defendant Fingerhut, defendants owned little,
  •    |