robbins geller rudman by superior court of ca, & dowd llp ... · robbins geller rudman &...
TRANSCRIPT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP RANDALL J. BARON (150796) A. RICK ATWOOD, JR. (156529) MAXWELL R. HUFFMAN (264687) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax)
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
In re McAFEE, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION
Consolidated action, including: Greenberg v. McAfee, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1:10-cv-180413 Colwell v. McAfee, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1:10-cv-180420 Faulkner v. McAfee, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1:10-cv-180597 Korsinsky v. Bass, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1:10-cv-180928
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Lead Case No. 1:10-cv-180413
CLASS ACTION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION
DATE: October 4, 2019 TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT: 5 DATE ACTION FILED: 08/19/2010
Judge: Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle
Electronically Filedby Superior Court of CA,County of Santa Clara,on 7/29/2019 4:50 PMReviewed By: R. WalkerCase #2010-1-CV-180413Envelope: 3193055
2010-1-CV-180413Santa Clara – Civil
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- 2 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 7
III. THE SETTLEMENT IS ENTITLED TO A PRESUMPTION OF FAIRNESS ..................... 8
IV. THE SETTLEMENT SATISFIES FACTORS FAVORING FINAL APPROVAL ............... 9
A. The Amount of the Settlement Favors Final Approval ................................................ 9
B. The Substantial Risks of Continued Litigation .......................................................... 10
1. Risks in Establishing Liability ....................................................................... 11
2. Other Risks Related to Affirmative Defenses ................................................ 12
3. Risks in Proving Damages ............................................................................. 12
4. Risks Relating to Appeal ............................................................................... 13
C. The Stage of Proceedings and Available Evidence Allowed the Parties to Make Informed Decisions Concerning the Settlement .............................................. 14
D. Balancing the Certainty of an Immediate Recovery Against Continued Litigation Favors the Settlement ................................................................................ 15
E. The Recommendation of Experienced Counsel Favors Approval of the Settlement .................................................................................................................. 16
F. Reaction of the Class Supports Approval of the Settlement ...................................... 16
V. THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION IS A FAIR METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS ................................................................................................ 16
VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
- 3 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASES
Ally Fin. Inc. v. Lazrovich, No. H041197, 2016 WL 4766225 (Cal. App. Sept. 13, 2016) ........................................................................................................... 10
Beecher v. Able, 575 F.2d 1010 (2d Cir. 1978)....................................................................................................... 16
Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co., 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589 (1991) ....................................................................................................... 7
Brotherton v. Cleveland, 141 F. Supp. 2d 894 (S.D. Ohio 2001) ........................................................................................ 16
Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1380 (2010) ...................................................................................................... 9
Cent. Laborers’ Pension Fund v. McAfee, Inc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 292 (2017) ........................................................................................................ 14
Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................................... 16
Corwin v. KKR Fin. Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015) ............................................................................................................ 12
Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794 (1996) .......................................................................................... 7, 8, 9, 16
El Paso Pipeline GP Co., L.L.C. v. Brinckerhoff, 152 A.3d 1248 (Del. 2016) .......................................................................................................... 14
G. F. v. Contra Costa Cty., No. 13-cv-03667-MEJ, 2015 WL 4606078 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) ............................................................................................................... 8
Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household Int’l, Inc., 787 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 13
Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., 688 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 14
In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litig., 124 A.3d 1025 (Del. Ch. 2015).......................................................................................... 9, 11, 12
Page
- 4 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In re Datatec Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-CV-525 (GEB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87428 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2007) ................................................................................................................. 17
In re Dole Food Co., Inc. Stockholder Litig., No. 8703-VCL, 2015 WL 5052214 (Del. Ch. Aug. 27, 2015).......................................................................................................... 8, 17
In re Mfrs. Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., MDL No. 1109, 1998 WL 1993385 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 1998) ............................................................................................................. 13
In re Nine Systems Corp. S’holders Litig., No. 3940-VCN, 2014 WL 4383127 (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014) ............................................................................................................... 12
In re Omnivision Techs., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ....................................................................................... 16
In re PLX Tech. Inc. Stockholders Litig., No. 9880-VCL, 2018 WL 5018535 (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018) ................................................................................................................. 8
In re: Pool Prods. Dist. Market Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2328, 2016 WL 235781 (E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2016) ............................................................................................................... 14
In re Rural/Metro Corp. Stockholders Litig., 102 A.3d 205 (Del. Ch. 2014).................................................................................................. 8, 17
In re Trados Inc. S’holder Litig., 73 A.3d 17 (Del. Ch. 2013).......................................................................................................... 13
In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig., 143 A.3d 727 (Del. Ch. 2016)...................................................................................................... 12
In re Warner Commc’ns Sec. Litig., 618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) .............................................................................................. 15
Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2008) ...................................................................................................... 15
Milstein v. Huck, 600 F. Supp. 254 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) .............................................................................................. 15
Page
- 5 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 186 Cal. App. 4th 399 (2010) ...................................................................................................... 10
Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................. 7, 16
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ....................................................................................................... 15
Singh v. Attenborough, 137 A.3d 151 (Del. 2016) ...................................................................................................... 11, 12
Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal. 5th 260 (2018) ............................................................................................................... 9, 10
White v. NFL, 822 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Minn. 1993) ............................................................................................. 17
STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
California Civil Code §1781(f).......................................................................................................................................... 7
Delaware General Corporation Law §102(b)(7) .................................................................................................................................... 11 §141(e) ......................................................................................................................................... 11
SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, 2 Newberg on Class Actions (3d ed. 1992) §11.48........................................................................................................................................... 16
Ravi Sinha, Shareholder Litigation Involving Acquisitions of Public Companies – Review of 2015 and 1H 2016 M&A Litigation (Cornerstone Research 2016) ......................................................................................................... 6
- 6 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This is a shareholder class action brought on behalf of a class of former stockholders of
McAfee, Inc. (“McAfee” or the “Company”) in connection with the sale of McAfee to Intel
Corporation (“Intel”) for a price of $48.00 per share in cash (the “Transaction”). Plaintiff and Class
Representative Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this memorandum
in support of the motion for final approval of the Settlement of this Action and for approval of the
proposed distribution of proceeds (the “Plan of Allocation”) based on the terms set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated March 13, 2019 (“Stipulation” or “Settlement”).1
I. INTRODUCTION
After more than eight years of hard-fought litigation – which included two demurrers, three
motions for summary judgment, a petition for writ of mandamus, 38 fact and expert depositions, the
production and review of over 195,000 pages of documents, three discovery motions and many more
informal discovery conferences with the Court, a successful appeal, the certification of the Class, and
three motions in limine – the Parties agreed to resolve this Action just six weeks before trial was
scheduled to begin. The Settlement represents a favorable outcome for the Class – an all-cash
recovery of $11.7 million.
Results like this are demonstrably uncommon. In a study concerning stockholder litigation over
corporate mergers and acquisitions of public companies, Cornerstone Research reported that, among
the hundreds of lawsuits filed during 2015 and the first half of 2016, only six of those cases resulted in
any monetary recovery for stockholders. See Ravi Sinha, Shareholder Litigation Involving Acquisitions
of Public Companies – Review of 2015 and 1H 2016 M&A Litigation, at 5 (Cornerstone Research 2016)
(Exhibit A).2 The study found that, in merger-related litigation, “[m]onetary consideration paid to
shareholders has remained relatively rare.” Id. Moreover, as discussed further below, the Settlement
compares favorably to other recent settlements in merger-related stockholder class actions.
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all capitalized terms and definitions have the same meaning as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed on March 13, 2019. 2 All references to “Exhibits” are citations to the attachments to the Declaration of Maxwell R. Huffman in Support of Motions for: (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation; and (2) an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Declaration”), submitted herewith.
- 7 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In weighing the clear benefits of the Settlement, Plaintiff also considered the risks that it faced
if this case was taken to trial, including the potentially dispositive defenses of stockholder ratification
and the business judgment rule. As discussed in detail below, the Settlement is favorable to the risks
posed by trial, where several recent cases have resulted in no recovery at all for stockholders. Based
on a well-informed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying claims and defenses,
with the advice of experienced counsel, and following a mediation session before Robert A. Meyer,
Esq., a nationally-recognized, neutral mediator with extensive experience in mediating complex
actions, Plaintiff accepted the terms of the Settlement, which it believes to be in the best interests of
the Class.
For the reasons set forth herein and in the Declaration submitted concurrently herewith,
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant final approval of the Settlement and approve the
Plan of Allocation for being fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
California Civil Code §1781(f) provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed, settled,
or compromised without the approval of the court.” The court’s role in approving a class action
settlement is to determine whether “‘the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and
adequate’” to class members. Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1801 (1996).3 For
complex class actions, there is a “strong public policy” in favor of settlements. Bell v. Am. Title Ins.
Co., 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1607 (1991). The Court’s inquiry therefore “‘must be limited to the
extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or
overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a
whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.’” Dunk, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1801. “‘In most
situations, unless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to
lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.’” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV,
Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
3 Citations are omitted unless otherwise indicated.
- 8 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. THE SETTLEMENT IS ENTITLED TO A PRESUMPTION OF FAIRNESS
A presumption of fairness applies to a proposed settlement when: “(1) the settlement is
reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow
counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the
percentage of objectors is small.” Dunk, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1802.
First, the Settlement was the product of extensive arm’s-length negotiations by counsel, which
included the assistance of a neutral mediator with significant experience in merger-related class
actions. ¶34.4 The Parties exchanged opening and supplemental mediation statements, engaged in a
full-day session with the mediator, and then continued their negotiations for another two months
before reaching the Settlement. Id. Courts have recognized that “‘[t]he assistance of an experienced
mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-collusive.’” G. F. v. Contra
Costa Cty., No. 13-cv-03667-MEJ, 2015 WL 4606078, at *13 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2015).
Second, as discussed herein and in the Declaration, the Settlement came after eight years of
hard-fought litigation, including full fact and expert discovery. ¶¶7-35. In total, discovery in this
Action involved 38 depositions, as well as production and review of over 195,000 pages of
documents. ¶50. As a result of this thorough investigation, Plaintiff and its counsel were able to
fairly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Class’ claims.
Third, Plaintiff’s Counsel has extensive experience and expertise in litigating not just complex
class actions, but also stockholders’ claims in the context of disputed mergers of public companies.
In fact, Plaintiff’s Counsel was lead counsel for plaintiffs in the last three merger-related stockholder
class actions to be taken to trial, which included the exact same claims of breach of fiduciary duty
and the aiding and abetting thereof that are asserted here. See In re Dole Food Co., Inc. Stockholder
Litig., No. 8703-VCL, 2015 WL 5052214 (Del. Ch. Aug. 27, 2015) (awarding damages in post-trial
ruling); In re Rural/Metro Corp. Stockholders Litig., 102 A.3d 205 (Del. Ch. 2014) (awarding
damages in post-trial ruling); In re PLX Tech. Inc. Stockholders Litig., No. 9880-VCL, 2018 WL
4 All references to “¶” and “¶¶” are citations to the Declaration.
- 9 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5018535 (Del. Ch. Oct. 16, 2018) (finding an activist investor knowingly participated in the board’s
breaches of fiduciary duty in post-trial ruling, but awarding no damages).
Fourth, although the date for filing of written objections has not yet passed, Plaintiff’s
Counsel is not aware of a single objection to any aspect of the Settlement.
Accordingly, the Settlement is presumptively fair.
IV. THE SETTLEMENT SATISFIES FACTORS FAVORING FINAL APPROVAL
When evaluating the fairness of a class action settlement, the trial court is to consider both the
“give” and the “get” for class members. In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litig., 124 A.3d
1025, 1043 (Del. Ch. 2015) (approving a settlement in a merger-related stockholder action);
Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1380, 1388 (2010) (affirming approval of a
class action settlement and the trial court’s finding that “‘the total monetary and injunctive relief
obtained is reasonable in light of the claims released and the risks of further litigation’”). On one
hand, class members receive a benefit related to their claims – whether monetary compensation or a
therapeutic benefit. Id. On the other hand, class members give a release of claims that ends the
litigation against defendants. Id.
In weighing the fairness of this exchange, trial courts will consider certain factors, including:
(1) the settlement amount; (2) the risks of continued litigation; (3) the stage of proceedings; (4) the
complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation absent settlement; (5) the experience and
views of class counsel; and (6) the reaction of class members. Dunk, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1801. The
trial court is “free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances
of each case.” Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 245 (2001), overruled on
other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal. 5th 260 (2018). Here, even if there
were not a presumption of fairness, the Settlement satisfies this standard.
A. The Amount of the Settlement Favors Final Approval
“Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process,” which can result in a
recovery that is “narrower” than if plaintiff ultimately prevailed at trial. Wershba, 91 Cal. App. 4th
at 250. As a result, a recovery that is less than the complete relief sought “is no bar to a class
- 10 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
settlement because ‘the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each
side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation.’” Ally Fin. Inc. v. Lazrovich, No. H041197,
2016 WL 4766225, at *9 (Cal. App. Sept. 13, 2016); Wershba, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 250 (“A settlement
need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable.”).
Here, the Settlement provides an $11.7 million all-cash recovery for the benefit of the Class –
a result which is demonstrably uncommon for cases of this nature. As explained in the Declaration,
monetary recoveries in merger-related stockholder class actions are exceedingly rare, let alone a
common fund of this magnitude. ¶5. The Settlement results in a pro rata recovery of approximately
$0.08 per share (based on just under 154 million shares owned by the Class), which is on top of the
premium that Intel paid to McAfee’s stock price prior to the announcement of the Transaction. ¶37.
Such recoveries are consistent with those recently approved in other merger-related class actions. See
In re Mavenir Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 10757-VCMR, Stipulation and Agreement
of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (Del. Ch.) ($3 million common fund with approximately
29 million shares owned by the class, which equates to pro rata recovery of roughly $0.10 per share)
(Exhibit B); In re BMC Software, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 8544-VCG, Stipulation of
Settlement and Release (Del. Ch.) ($12.4 million common fund with approximately 127 million
shares owned by the class, which equates to a pro rata recovery of roughly $0.09 per share)
(Exhibit C). In preliminarily approving the Settlement, the Court found that “the settlement is fair”
based on such a recovery for the Class Members. See Order re: Continued Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement at 3.
Accordingly, this factor favors the Court granting final approval of the Settlement.
B. The Substantial Risks of Continued Litigation
In evaluating the fairness of a proposed settlement, the trial court should consider “‘the
strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation.’” Munoz v. BCI
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 186 Cal. App. 4th 399, 410 (2010). As explained herein,
Plaintiff’s case presented unique and substantial risks with respect to both liability and damages.
- 11 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Risks in Establishing Liability
In weighing the clear benefits of the Settlement, Plaintiff – with the assistance of its counsel
– considered the many risks that it faced if this case was taken to trial, including “[a]rticulate
witnesses, skilled counsel, and polished experts” from Defendants who would be prepared to present
their best arguments for why neither Delaware substantive law nor the facts of this case would support
any claim for liability. Activision, 124 A.3d at 1064 (“The magnitude of the Settlement reflects that
Lead Counsel advanced strong claims for breach of the duty of loyalty. That does not mean that the
claims were without risk.”).
For example, McAfee’s certificate of incorporation contained an exculpatory provision
pursuant to §102(b)(7) of Delaware General Corporation Law that prohibited any liability for
breaches of fiduciary duty by Defendant David DeWalt (“DeWalt”) as a director except in the
instances of disloyal or bad faith conduct. DeWalt was also offered protection under §141(e), which
provides that directors are “fully protected” from liability when relying in good faith on the advice
and opinions of a company’s officers or outside advisors. Further, to establish Intel’s liability,
Plaintiff needed to prove it acted with “scienter” when knowingly participating in an underlying
breach of fiduciary duty, which the Delaware Supreme Court has been described as a “defendant-
friendly standard.” Singh v. Attenborough, 137 A.3d 151, 152 (Del. 2016).
In addition to these legal standards that Plaintiff would have faced at trial, Defendants were
prepared to argue that a number of facts precluded liability, including that: (1) DeWalt owned 225,000
shares of McAfee stock, as well as another 489,063 in stock options, which arguably gave him a
financial incentive to negotiate aggressively with Intel; (2) the Transaction price represented a 60%
premium over McAfee’s stock price on the day before the sale to Intel was publicly announced;
(3) McAfee’s financial advisors at Morgan Stanley opined that the Transaction was financially fair to
the Company’s stockholders; (4) no other potential buyer submitted a superior bid to acquire the
- 12 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Company; and (5) over 72% of McAfee’s outstanding shares were voted in favor of the Transaction.
See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 6-15.5
Although Plaintiff was prepared to make counterarguments to each of these positions, the
Court may have found Defendants’ factual and legal arguments persuasive or even dispositive as to
the elements of liability for Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, a meaningful chance existed that the Class could
have walked away with nothing if this Action proceeded to trial.
2. Other Risks Related to Affirmative Defenses
After the initial filing of this Action, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision that
presented another risk for Plaintiff’s claims. See Corwin v. KKR Fin. Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304
(Del. 2015). Under Corwin and its recent progeny, where a disinterested and fully informed,
uncoerced majority of stockholders approve a transaction, whether through tender offer or vote, an
“irrebuttable” form of the business judgment rule applies. In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig.,
143 A.3d 727, 737-38 (Del. Ch. 2016). In that scenario, all challenges to a merger are extinguished,
other than those predicated on waste. Id. at 740. The Delaware Supreme Court has indicated that
waste claims have “little real-world relevance” in sell-side actions where the merger paid a premium
to the target company’s stockholders, and the approval of fully-informed and disinterested
stockholders is therefore generally an absolute defense to stockholders’ claims. Singh, 137 A.3d at
152. While serious disclosure issues existed in this case, which would prevent a fully informed vote,
Plaintiff’s arguments were not unassailable.
3. Risks in Proving Damages
“In addition to the risks of losing on liability, there was risk associated with the possible
remedies.” Activision, 124 A.3d at 1065. Even if stockholders prove that a company’s directors or
officers breached their fiduciary duties, or a third party aided and abetted such misconduct, there is
no guarantee that any causally-related damages will be found. See, e.g., In re Nine Systems Corp.
5 Plaintiff also faced broader evidentiary concerns, as the Transaction took place over eight years ago and fact witnesses could have struggled to recall relevant events. In fact, at least one key witness – Intel’s Chief Executive Officer at the time of the merger – has passed away since this case was filed. See Exhibit D (Intel Press Release).
- 13 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S’holders Litig., No. 3940-VCN, 2014 WL 4383127, at *3 (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014) (finding in a
stockholder class action that, “given the only reliable valuation evidence, . . . the Defendants who
breached their fiduciary duties or who aided and abetted those breaches are not liable for monetary
damages”); In re Trados Inc. S’holder Litig., 73 A.3d 17 (Del. Ch. 2013) (finding that the
consideration paid to common stockholders in the disputed merger was “fair” despite directors’ self-
dealing).
Here, the factual disputes related to the calculation of damages and the fair value of McAfee
at the time of the Transaction were fiercely contested and presented significant risk for Plaintiff at
trial. In support of a compensatory damages award, Plaintiff was prepared to argue that McAfee’s
fair value exceeded the Transaction price because future business opportunities were not accounted
for in the Company’s financial projections, and the Class was therefore entitled to damages equal the
difference between the Company’s true value and the $48.00 per share that stockholders received.
On the other hand, Defendants were prepared to argue that Intel paid a fair price to acquire the
Company, while emphasizing that the Transaction price represented a 60% premium to McAfee’s
unaffected stock price, McAfee’s financial advisors Morgan Stanley opined the consideration was
financially fair to stockholders, and no other potential buyer made a superior bid. See Defendants’
Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony.
Thus, Plaintiff faced the prospect of winning the liability phase at trial, but recovering nothing
for the Class.
4. Risks Relating to Appeal
Even if Plaintiff was to prevail at trial, the risks would not end there. See In re Mfrs. Life Ins.
Co. Premium Litig., MDL No. 1109, 1998 WL 1993385, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 1998) (explaining
that “even if it is assumed that a successful outcome for plaintiffs at summary judgment or at trial
would yield a greater recovery than the Settlement – which is not at all apparent – there is easily
enough uncertainty in the mix to support settling the dispute rather than risking no recovery in future
proceedings”). There are many cases in the class action context in which a successful verdict has
been overturned either by motion after trial or an appeal. See, e.g., Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household
- 14 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Int’l, Inc., 787 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2015) (reversing a jury verdict in a securities fraud class action after
13 years of litigation on loss causation grounds and error in jury instructions); Hubbard v.
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., 688 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2012) (finding trial court erred, but defendants
nevertheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on lack of loss causation in securities fraud
class action); El Paso Pipeline GP Co., L.L.C. v. Brinckerhoff, 152 A.3d 1248 (Del. 2016) (reversing
post-trial judgment that awarded $171 million in damages to shareholder class). In fact, a dispositive
judgment in this case has already been reversed by the Court of Appeal. Cent. Laborers’ Pension
Fund v. McAfee, Inc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 292 (2017). As a result, Plaintiff needed to evaluate the
immediate and certain benefits of the Settlement not just against the risks present at trial, but the
potential for a lengthy appellate process that could result in a reversal of a post-trial judgment in the
Class’ favor.
C. The Stage of Proceedings and Available Evidence Allowed the Parties to Make Informed Decisions Concerning the Settlement
This factor focuses on whether the parties had sufficient information to conduct an informed
negotiation for a settlement that adequately reflects the merits of the case. When applying this factor,
“[t]he question is not whether the parties have completed a particular amount of discovery, but whether
the parties have obtained sufficient information about the strengths and weaknesses of their respective
cases to make a reasoned judgment about the desirability of settling on the terms proposed or continuing
to litigate.” In re: Pool Prods. Dist. Market Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2328, 2016 WL 235781, at *8
(E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2016). “If the settlement proponents have taken affirmative steps to gather data on
the claims at issue, and the terms of the settlement are not patently unfair, the Court may rely on
counsel’s judgment that the information gathered was enough to support a settlement.” Id.
As detailed above and in the Declaration, by the time the Parties reached the Settlement,
Plaintiff had thoroughly investigated and researched the merits of its claims and the potential defenses
to determine that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interest
of the Class. ¶¶7-35. Plaintiff doggedly litigated the merits of this case for eight years and engaged
in full fact and expert discovery, which included over 195,000 pages of document discovery and 38
depositions. Id. The merits of the Parties’ respective positions were also extensively debated through
- 15 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement discussions, including in mediation. ¶34. The knowledge and insight gained through
these activities provided Plaintiff with sufficient information to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the Class’ claims and the range of potential outcomes at trial.
D. Balancing the Certainty of an Immediate Recovery Against Continued Litigation Favors the Settlement
“The expense and possible duration of the litigation should be considered in evaluating the
reasonableness of [a] settlement.” Milstein v. Huck, 600 F. Supp. 254, 267 (E.D.N.Y. 1984); Kullar
v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116, 123 n.3 (2008) (discussing the “expense and delay
of continued lengthy proceedings that would be necessary to prosecute the action against defendant
through trial and appeals”). The benefit of an immediate recovery must therefore be balanced against
the time and expense required to potentially achieve a more favorable result in the future. Officers
for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the fact that the
Class potentially could have achieved a greater recovery after trial does not preclude the Court from
balancing such a potential recovery against the risk and delay of trial, and finding that the Settlement
is within a “range of reasonableness” for approval. In re Warner Commc’ns Sec. Litig., 618 F. Supp.
735, 745 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Approval of the Settlement will mean prompt recovery for the Class. If not for this Settlement,
the case would have continued at great cost and duration. At the time the Parties agreed to settle the
Action, they were facing a lengthy bench trial. Although a post-trial judgment may have been not far
off, any outcome was virtually certain to be appealed. This process would have extended an already
lengthy litigation even further. Tellingly, the Parties litigated the prior appeal of the initial summary
judgment rulings for five years, with summary judgment initially being granted in November 2012
and the decision on the appeal being entered in November 2017. ¶¶26-28. Delay – not just at the
trial stage, but through post-trial motions and the appeals process as well – could therefore force Class
Members to wait even longer for any recovery, thereby further reducing its value. Settlement of this
Action ensures an immediate recovery while eliminating the risk of no recovery at all.
- 16 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. The Recommendation of Experienced Counsel Favors Approval of the Settlement
While a court must independently review a proposed settlement, the judgment of experienced
counsel who is familiar with the factual and legal issues is entitled to “great weight.” See Nat’l Rural,
221 F.R.D. at 528. As one court recognized, “‘[t]he recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should
be given a presumption of reasonableness.’” In re Omnivision Techs., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043
(N.D. Cal. 2007). As discussed above, Plaintiff’s Counsel is known for its experience and success in
complex and class action litigation and fully supports the Settlement as in the best interest of the
Class. This factor therefore favors this Court’s approval of the Settlement.
F. Reaction of the Class Supports Approval of the Settlement
A court may also consider the reaction of the class in determining whether to approve a
settlement. Dunk, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1802 (one of the factors leading to a presumption that the
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate is that “the percentage of objectors is small”). A “relatively
small number” of objections is “an indication of a settlement’s fairness.” Brotherton v. Cleveland,
141 F. Supp. 2d 894, 906 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (citing Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, 2 Newberg on
Class Actions §11.48 (3d ed. 1992)).
Here, although the time for objections has not yet expired, to date, no Class Member has
objected to any aspect of the Settlement. Thus, the reaction of the Class weighs in favor of approving
the Settlement.
V. THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION IS A FAIR METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS
The objective of a plan of allocation is to provide an equitable basis upon which to distribute
the settlement fund among eligible class members. See Beecher v. Able, 575 F.2d 1010, 1016 (2d Cir.
1978) (courts enjoy “broad supervisory powers over the administration of class-action settlements to
allocate the proceeds among the claiming class members . . . equitably”). Assessment of the plan of
allocation is governed by the same standards of review applicable to the settlement as a whole – the
plan must be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1284 (9th Cir.
1992). An allocation formula must only have a reasonable, rational basis, particularly if recommended
- 17 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by “experienced and competent” plaintiffs’ counsel. White v. NFL, 822 F. Supp. 1389, 1420-24
(D. Minn. 1993). Because they tend to mirror the complaints’ allegations, “plans that allocate money
depending on the timing of purchases and sales of the securities at issue are common.” In re Datatec
Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-CV-525 (GEB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87428, at *15 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2007).
Here, the Net Settlement Fund will be divided pro rata based upon the number of shares of
McAfee common stock that Class Members held at the closing of the Transaction. The Net Settlement
Fund will be disbursed by the Claims Administrator to the Settlement Payment Recipients and will
be allocated on a per-share basis amongst the Settlement Payment Recipients who have submitted to
the Claims Administrator a valid Proof of Claim by the deadline provided in the Notice based on the
number of shares of McAfee common stock held by the applicable Settlement Payment Recipient
upon the closing of the Transaction. The objective of this plan is to provide an equitable basis upon
which to distribute the Net Settlement Fund among eligible Class Members. This will result in a fair
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund among Class Members, as it is consistent with how post-trial
damages are calculated and distributed for cases of this nature that proceed through trial. See
Rural/Metro, 102 A.3d at 224 (explaining that monetary damages are “‘equal to the “fair” or
“intrinsic” value of their stock at the time of the merger, less the price per share that they actually
received’”); Dole, 2015 WL 5052214, at *2 (calculating damages on a “per share” basis).
Thus, the Plan of Allocation is appropriate and should be approved.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court approve the
Settlement and the Plan of Allocation.
DATED: July 29, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP RANDALL J. BARON A. RICK ATWOOD, JR. MAXWELL R. HUFFMAN
MAXWELL R. HUFFMAN
- 18 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION 4847-0874-4861.v2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax)
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
CAVANAGH & O’HARA PATRICK J. O’HARA 407 East Adams Street Springfield, IL 62701 Telephone: 217/544-1771 217/544-9894 (fax)
Additional counsel for plaintiff Central Laborers’ Pension Fund
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
2 I, JACLYN WILLIAMS, not a party to the within action, hereby declare that on July 29, 2019, served the attached MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION on the parties in the within action by e-mail addressed
4 as follows:
5 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:
6
7
8
9
10
NAME Randall J. Baron A. Rick Atwood, Jr. David T. Wissbroecker Maxwell R. Huffman Patrick J. O'Hara John T. Long
FIRM Robbins Geller Rudman & DowdLLP
Cavanagh & O'Hara, LLP
11 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NAME FIRM
Paul J. Collins Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Rodney G. Strickland, Jr. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. P.C.
Robert L. Dell Angelo Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Maria Jhai John W. Soiegel
EMAIL [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] mhuffmancal.r2:rdlaw.com [email protected] j [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] John. [email protected]
Electronically filedby Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara,on 7/29/2019 4:50 PMReviewed By:R. WalkerCase #2010-1-CV-180413Env #3193055