1
.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OR TO DISMISS THE ACTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
DISMISS
PROSECUTE
DEFENDANTS
MAXUS
CLASS ACTION
FAILURE
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
DEL
COUNSEL
REPORTS
PURSUANT
CHANCERY COURT
REASON
MOTION
RELIEF
LITIGATION
INACTION
SLIP
PREJUDICE
UNJUST
UNDUE DELAYS
ATTORNEY
RESPONSE
OFFSHORE
EXPLORATION COMPANY
DIAMOND SHAMROCK
DOCKET ENTRY
PENDING
|
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
lN RR DIAMOND SHAMROCK SECURITIES : Consolidated
LITIGATION Civil Action No. 13483
c:_.:.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTWFS' MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO DiSMISS
THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CHANCERY COURT RULE,41(ej
L.. .
Defendants Maxus Energy Corporation, Maxus Offshore Exploration Company, Maxus
Exploration Company, CL. Blackburn, Steven G. Crowell and John C. S&mid (collectively, the
"Maxus Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond in opposition to
plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Order (the "Motion") as follows:
1. Plaintiffs commenced the above-captioned class action (the "Class Action") on
27, 1994, on behalf of a class (the "Class") of minority unitholders of Diamond Shamrock Offshore
Limited Partnership. As amended on July 25, 1994, the plaintiffs' complaint sought, inter alia,
judgment enjoining the merger of Diamond Shamrock into Meridian Offshore Company and
requiring disclosure of internal forecasts regarding Diamond Shamrock's future earnings potential.
2. The last substantive action taken in pursuit of the prosecution of the Class
occurred on April 18, 1996, when this Court signed the Stipulation and Order Governing the
Protection and Exchange of Confidential Material.
3. The only actions docketed in 1997 and 1998 regarding the Class Action were the
filing of status reports and two letters. The status reports filed by counsel for plaintiffs and
defendants on February 25, 1998, informed the Court that settlement negotiations were taking place.
RLFl-2149376-3
SNIPPETS:
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTWFS' MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO DiSMISS
THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CHANCERY COURT RULE,41(ej
Defendants Maxus Energy Corporation, Maxus Offshore Exploration Company, Maxus
"Maxus Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond in opposition to
27, 1994, on behalf of a class of minority unitholders of Diamond Shamrock Offshore
As amended on July 25, 1994, the plaintiffs' complaint sought, inter alia,
filing of status reports and two letters.
defendants on February 25, 1998, informed the Court that settlement negotiations were taking
No action was docketed in 1999 regarding the Class Action.
Defendants on February 23 requested that the Class Action be dismissed because of plaintiffs'
The duty to prosecute a claim diligently lies with plaintiffs.
&, Del.
No. 2142, slip op.
of litigation which has suffered from unjustified inaction.").
prejudice for failure to prosecute "is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the
pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts").
good reason for inaction has not been given by plaintiffs..
Contrary to the requirements of Rule 41, the last docket entry other than status
an unjust penalty on the client.
attorney as his representative in the action,
|
