LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

LEWIS v VOGELSTEIN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 14,954, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: LEWIS, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00014954, Mattel, Settlement, Stipulation, Plan, Directors, Stockholders, Fees, Expenses, Parties, Stock Options, Individual Defendants, Non-employee Directors, Delaware, Del, Facts, Complaint, Edward, Compensation, Lewis, Supr, Proxy Statement, Stock Option, Chancery, Plaintiffs Counsel, Parties Hereto, Pearl Meyer, Common Stock, California, Shareholder, Annual Options, Settled Claims, Derivative Action, Reasonableness, Representatives, William, Reimbursement, Arnold Gershon, Harold Brown, Friedman , ContentID: 120246276

Case Documents
1 2001-05-21 PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115568
28 pages
PDF
2 2001-03-26 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114867
15 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 2 documents , 43 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
FEES
EXPENSES
DIRECTORS
ATTORNEYS
SETTLEMENT
MATTEL
DEL
FACTS
PLAN
DELAWARE
COMPENSATION
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
LEWIS
SUPR
PROXY STATEMENT
COMPLAINT
STOCK OPTION
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
LITIGATION
PEARL MEYER
SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE ACTION
REASONABLENESS
EDWARD
WILLIAM
REIMBURSEMENT
ARNOLD GERSHON
              IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE: OF DELAWARE
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

HARRY LEWIS,

                            Plaintiff,              )
      V .                                                     C.A. No. 14954

JOHN L. VOGELSTEIN, EDWARD H.
MALONE, WILLIAM D. ROLLNICK, JOHN )
W. AMERMAN, JILL E.  BARAD, HAROLD )
BROWN, JAMES A. ESKRIDGE, TULLY
M. FREIDMAN, RONALD M. LOEB,                        1
EDWARD N. NEY, CHRISTOPHER A.
SINCLAIR, AND MATTEL, INC.,                         1                            : :
                                                                                 ; .'
                            Defendants.             !                           .r 1
                                                                                '- .


             PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN  SUPPORT  OF PROPOSED  S E T T L E M E N T
AND  APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF  EXPENSES
                                                                                 3



                                          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT, GROSS  61
                                                GODDESS, P.A.
                                          Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center
                                          919 N. Market Street
                                          P.O. Box 1070
                                          Wilmington, DE 19801
                                           ( 3 0 2 )   6 5 6 - 4 4 3 3
                                          Attorneys for  E'laintiff

OF COUNSEL:

A. ARNOLD GERSHON, P.C.
295 Madisor. Avenue
New York, NY 10017
( 2 1 2 )   684-3'033


DATED: May 21, 2001



                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                          s
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE: OF DELAWARE
  • EDWARD N. NEY, CHRISTOPHER A.
  • PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED S E T T L E M E N T AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS'
  • ARNOLD GERSHON, P.C. 295 Madisor.
  • CF FACTS
  • THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE APPROVED AS FAIR,
  • PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHOULD BE AWARDED THE
  • Aronson v A- Lewis, Del.
  • Supr., 473 A.2d 805.
  • This stockholder's derivative action cha.Llenges the propriety
  • directors of Mattel, Inc..
  • granted to the non-employee directors; the amendment of t:le plan to
  • Plaintiff submits this b.rief in suppor-t (of the SettLement and
  • Stock Option Plan.
  • the grant of stock based compensation, includ.Lng stock options, to
  • The fiacts are derived from the investigation by plaintiff's counsel, the discovery reco.rd
  • The Proxy Statement contained a description of the Plan
  • as alleged in the complaint,
  • Mattel who had worked on the Plan and had dealt with Pearl Meyer.
  • expense and trouble of litigation;
  • its sound independant judgment, the overall reasonableness and
  • case is whether the affirmative defense of shareholder ratification

  • 2 . STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SETTLEMENT
    STIPULATION
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    PLAN
    STOCKHOLDERS
    PARTIES
    DIRECTORS
    STOCK OPTIONS
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    ATTORNEYS
    PLAINTIFF
    NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
    EDWARD
    CHANCERY
    PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL
    PARTIES HERETO
    COMMON STOCK
    DELAWARE
    CALIFORNIA
    ANNUAL OPTIONS
    COMPLAINT
    SETTLED CLAIMS
    EXPENSES
    REPRESENTATIVES
    HAROLD BROWN
    FRIEDMAN
    CHRISTOPHER
    SINCLAIR
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    HARRY LEWIS,                                        )
    
                                     Plaintiff,         ;
    
                          V.                            ; C.A. No. 14954
    
    JOHN L. VOGELSTEIN, EDWARD H.
    MALONE, WILLIAM D. ROLLNICK,
    JOHN W. AMERMAN, JILL E. BARAD,
    HAROLD BROWN, JAMES A.
    ESKRIDGE, TULLY M. FRIEDMAN,
    RONALD M. LOEB, EDWARD N. NEY,
    CHRISTOPHER A. SINCLAIR, and
    MATTEL, INC.,
    
                                     Defendants.
    
                                     STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
    
             The parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their respective attorneys, have
    
    entered into the following Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") subject to the approval of
    
    Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (the "Court"):
    
             WHEREAS,
    
             A.        Nominal defendant Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel") is a Delaware corporation with its
    
    headquarters in El Segundo, California
    
             B.        Defendants John L. Vogelstein, Edward H. Malone, William D. Rollnick, John W
    
    Amerman, Jill E. Barad,  Harold Brown, James A. E&ridge, Tully M. Friedman, Ronald M. Loeb,
    
    Edward N. Ney and Christopher A. Sinclair (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") were
    
    directors of Mattel in the Spring of 1996
    
             C.        By proxy statement dated March 23, 1996 (the "Proxy Statement"), Mattel
    
    among other things, stockholder approval for the 1996 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan
    
    RLFl-2198618.4
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • The parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their respective attorneys, have
  • entered into the following Stipulation of Settlement subject to the approval of the
  • headquarters in El Segundo, California
  • Edward N. Ney and Christopher A. Sinclair (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") were
  • directors of Mattel in the Spring of 1996
  • stockholder approval for the 1996 Stock Option Plan.
  • Plan authorized the Compensation/Options Committee of the Board of Directors
  • to grant incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights and
  • Mattel common stock to key employees of Mattel.
  • nonqualified stock options to non-employee directors of Mattel.
  • The Plan provided that Annual Options had a term
  • E. The Annual Meeting of' Stockholders of Mattel was held on May 8,
  • F. On April 22, 1996, a derivative and class action complaint was
  • G. Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint for his class action claim that the Individual
  • In consideration for the full settlement,
  • of the Settled Claims, the Individual Defendants will:
  • successors in interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators,
  • As soon as practicable alter the execution of the Stipulation, the parties hereto shall
  • for reasonable expenses not to exceed twenty thousand dollars.
  • not object to such an application by plaintiffs counsel, but Defendants retain the right to
  •    |