Reasons for Settlement. The core of Lead Plaintiff’s case is that the registration statements and prospectuses issued by the Core Bond Fund during the period between April 30, 2007 and December 31, 2008 (“Disclosure Documents”) allegedly represented the Core Bond Fund as a “broadly diversified portfolio” that was designed to “seek total return and reduce share price volatility” and was focused “mainly on U.S. government securities and investment- grade debt securities.” Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Disclosure Documents misrepresented the riskiness of investments in the Core Bond Fund when they acquired positions in leveraged derivative investments, such as credit default swaps, total return swaps and mortgage-backed securities. As strongly as Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believed in their case, there were significant risks of pursuing this case to trial. For instance, Defendants: (i) denied having any liability to Lead Plaintiff or to the members of the Class (defined below) and argued that language in the Disclosure Documents put Class Members on notice of the risks associated with the Core Bond Fund’s investments in derivatives and mortgage-backed securities; (ii) argued that the financial crisis was unprecedented and caught even the most sophisticated financial firms by surprise, thus any undisclosed risks were unforeseeable, no misrepresentations were made, and no statements, acts, or omissions by Defendants were the cause of any harm to Lead Plaintiff or Class Members; and (iii) disputed the amount of alleged damages and would use their own experts at trial to argue that the alleged damages were not related to the misrepresentations alleged in the case. If the Case Had Not Settled: The settlement must be compared to the risk of no recovery after contested motions, trial and likely appeals. While Lead Counsel was prepared to go to trial and was confident about the claims, a trial is a risky proposition and Lead Plaintiff might not have prevailed. The claims in this case involve numerous complex legal and factual issues that would require extensive expert testimony. Even if Defendants’ liability was proven at trial, the two sides do not agree about, among other things: (1) the amount of alleged damages, if any, that could be recovered at trial; (2) the other causes, if any, of the losses to the Core Bond Fund during the relevant period; (3) the proper measure of alleged damages; and (4) the extent that various facts alleged by Lead Plaintiff influenced the net asset valu...
Reasons for Settlement. The parties wish to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. Disagreement on Amount of Damages: The parties do not agree on the average amount of damages per share that would be recoverable if the Court- appointed Lead Plaintiffs prevailed. The primary issues on which the parties disagree include: (1) whether the Defendants are liable under the securities laws; and
Reasons for Settlement. For Lead Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate benefit of a cash recovery for the Settlement Class. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved following the Court’s decision on the Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, the completion of fact and expert discovery if the case was not dismissed, and the briefing of summary judgment motions. Even if the case advanced to trial, Lead Plaintiff would face the risk of losing at trial and the risk that a class might not be certified, as well as the risk of likely appeals which could last one or more additional years even if Plaintiff prevailed at trial. For the Defendants (who deny all allegations of liability and deny that any Class members were damaged) the principal reason for the Settlement is to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation.
Reasons for Settlement. For Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate benefit of a substantial cash recovery for the Class. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved after the Court decides the pending request for permission to move for reargument, any motion for class certification, any summary judgment motions and after a contested trial and likely appeals are resolved, possibly years into the future. For the Defendants, who deny all allegations of liability and deny that any Class Members were damaged, the principal reason for the Settlement is to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN , 2019. This is the only way to be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN , 2019. Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants concerning the claims that were, or could have been, asserted in this case. It is also the only way for Class Members to remove themselves from the Class. If you are considering excluding yourself from the Class, please note that there is a risk that any new claims asserted against the Defendants would be time-barred. You should talk to a lawyer before you request exclusion from the Class for the purpose of bringing a separate lawsuit. See page below. OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN , 2019. Write to the Court and explain why you do not like the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses or award to the Plaintiff. In order to object, you must remain a Member of the Class, may not exclude yourself, and you will be bound by the Court’s determinations. GO TO THE HEARING ON , 2019 AT _: _.M., AND FILE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN , 2019. Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Reasons for Settlement. The Court has not reached any final decisions in connection with Lead Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants. Instead, Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants (collectively, the “Settling Parties”) have agreed to this Settlement, which was reached with after extensive arm’s-length negotiations. For Lead Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate benefit of a cash recovery for the Settlement Class from Defendants from whom it would otherwise likely be extremely difficult to recover funds. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved following the completion of fact and expert discovery and the briefing of summary judgment motions. Even if the case advanced to trial, Lead Plaintiff would face the risk of losing at trial and the risk that a Class might not be certified, as well as the risk of likely appeals which could last one or more additional years even if Lead Plaintiff prevailed at trial. These risks would be compounded by the difficulty, and possible impossibility, of enforcing any judgment against the Defendants. For the Defendants (who deny all allegations of liability and deny that any Class Members were damaged) the principal reason for the Settlement is to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation.
Reasons for Settlement. In order to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, the Parties have agreed to compromise their respective claims and defenses. This Settlement Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, and nothing contained herein is to be construed as an admission of fact or of liability on the part of any Part or of the absence of liability by any Party with respect to the Claims.
Reasons for Settlement. Class Counsel believes that the provision of the class benefits, including the injunctive relief, adequately compensates Class Members for the harm they allegedly suffered, in light of the risks of litigation. There are numerous risks in continuing with this Litigation, including the possibility of being unable to secure monetary relief on behalf of the Class and the risks associated with the EarthLink Counterclaim. Given the risks associated with this litigation, Class Counsel believes that this recovery is excellent.
