§Why CasetextPricing

Warren Rubin et al v. Shlomo Margalit et al --- (In re MRV Communications, Inc. Derivative Litigation)

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Settlement Approval Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement 280

5 Cited authorities

  1. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

    688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 1,126 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"

  2. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado

    430 A.2d 779 (Del. 1981)   Cited 346 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that limited discovery is appropriate with respect to "the independence and good faith of the committee and the bases supporting its conclusions"

  3. In re Oracle Securities Litigation

    852 F. Supp. 1437 (N.D. Cal. 1994)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that even if one SLC member had "some alleged interest," since he was not the only member of the SLC, there was "nothing to indicate that the SLC's judgment was tainted in any way"

  4. Kaplan v. Wyatt

    484 A.2d 501 (Del. Ch. 1984)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that special litigation committees may consider, in addition to matters of law and public policy, "such ethical, commercial, promotional, public relations, employee relations and fiscal factors as may be involved in a given situation"

  5. Johnson v. Hui

    811 F. Supp. 479 (N.D. Cal. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that Rule 23.1 does not contain its own standard of review and "[f]ollowing the lead of" Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A.2d 779 (Del. 1981), to look to Rule 56 for guidance