C O U R T O F C H A N C E R Y
O F T H E
ST A T E OF D E L A W A R E
S T E P H E N P. L A M B
VICE-CHANCELLOR WILMING T O N
R. Bruce McNew, Esquire Jesse A. Finkelstein, Esquire
Taylor & McNew Richards, Layton & Finger
3711 Kennett Pike One Rodney Square - 2nd Floor
Suite 210 P.O. Box 551
Greenville, DE 19807 Wilmington, DE 19899
Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire Bruce L. Silverstein, Esquire
Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor
Suite 1401, Mellon Bank Center 1000 West Street
P.O. Box 1070 P.O. Box 391
Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
Pamela S. Tikellis, Esquire James S. Green, Esquire
Chimicles & Tikellis Seitz, VanOgtrop & Green, P.A.
One Rodney Square 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
P.O. Box 1035 P.O. Box 68
Wilmington, DE 19899 Wilmington, DE 19899
Hirt v. U.S. Timberlands Service Company, LLC, et al., CA. No. 19575
Bowers v. Rudey, et al., C. A. No. 19577
Cutler v. Rudey, et al., C.A. No. 19578
Eberlin, -et al. v. Rudey, et al., C.A. No. 19584
Susser v. Rudey, et al., C.A. No. 19592
Tisch v. Rudey, et al., C. A. No. 19608
Kosseff v. Rudey, et al., C.A. No. 19613
Obstfeld v. Rudey, et al., C.A. No. 19632
Submitted: June 18, 2002
Decided: July 3, 2002
Revised: July 9, 2002
C.A. No. 1957S;C.A. No. 19577
CA. No. 19578;C.A. No. 19584
CA. No. 19592;C.A. No. 19608
C.A. No. 19613;C.A. No. 19632
SNIPPETS:
U.S. Timberlands Service Company, LLC, et al., CA.
Dear Counsel:
On June 18, 2002, the court heard argument in these eight consolidated actions
on cross-motions to appoint lead counsel, one made by Harry R. Eberlin (a named
No. 19584) and the other by Harold Hirt (the named plaintiff in C.A.
Eberlin's motion and deny Hirt's.
Eberlin seeks the joint appointment of the law firms of Stull,
Abbey Gardy LLP as plaintiffs' lead counsel.
Company, L.P. According to his brief, this represents approximately 1.1 percent of
Eberlin's motion is supported by six of the eight groups of lawyers representing the
one group of plaintiffs take no position on the cross-motions.
similar transaction.
unsuccessfully to be appointed co-lead counsel with Abbey Gardy.
Hirt also complains that
issues relating to the organization of the earlier litigation are of only
limited relevance to the pending motions.
firms involved in the earlier cases are not, as least as of this date, involved in the cases
either support the decision to appoint Abbey Gardy and Stull,
effort to move those cases forward would properly have been met by motions to dismiss
interests of the shareholder class and derivative plaintiffs;"3 0 the relative economic
outcome of the lawsuit (to be accorded "great weight"); 4 0 the willingness and ability of
prosecute the claims at issue.*
TWC Technology Limited Partnership v. Intermadia Communications, Inc., 2000 WL 1654504 (Del.
In re SKY Entertainment, Inc. Shareholders Lit@., Consol.
plaintiffs' lawyers involved to meet and vote on an organizational structure for the
because the conduct at issue relates to the earlier suits and because the consensus of the
plaintiffs' counsel in the pending suits is obviously not the product of the improper
|
