It is rare for a judge to express views on the merits of a case ahead of a trial, but last week Judge Engelmayer did so, apparently at the urging of the parties who both thought that it would foster settlement. The views were set forth in an Order last week denying summary judgment in a case over escrowed funds following a corporate acquisition (see an earlier ruling here with more background). In the Order, Judge Engelmayer “took note of counsels’ observation that their attempts to resolve this matter would be assisted by some guidance from the Court as to its present assessment of certain issues in the case.”

Accordingly, ahead of a forthcoming bench trial, Judge Engelmayer essentially foreshadowed that the buyer had a strong case that the seller breached a particular warranty in the deal documents, but some risk associated with its associated theory of damages:
Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Shows Willingness to Preliminarily Assess Contract Dispute, to Help Foster Settlement

In an opinion Friday, Judge Caproni refused to enforce a disputed settlement of a trademark case that had been pending before her. The case was dismissed when the parties reported they had settled. The alleged settlement was not reflected in any court order.  And when apparent settlement fell apart, the plaintiff asked Judge Caproni to re-open the case so as to enforce the settlement. But Judge Caproni found that the request effectively asked her to assert supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim:
Continue Reading Judge Caproni: Jurisdiction Over Case Doesn’t Mean Jurisdiction to Enforce Disputed Settlement

In an order Friday, Judge Peck enforced as a binding contract the terms of a settlement negotiated over email in a case against former Mets star Lenny Dykstra.  The plaintiff managed Mr. Dykstra’s social media presence, including “dealing with the fallout from Dykstra’s boorish behavior,” and claims to have not been paid (see complaint here).

Mr. Dykstra’s lawyer had written “we have a deal” in an email chain with settlement terms but later argued that the terms also needed to include a “standard” mutual release.  Judge Peck disagreed:
Continue Reading Judge Peck: “We Have a Deal” Email from Lenny Dykstra’s Lawyer Creates a Binding Settlement

In an order yesterday, Judge Pauley rejected the joint request of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Sprint to move forward on court approval of a $50 million settlement of the regulator’s investigation into the telecom company.  The parties had submitted a proposed one-sentence joint motion for approval of a final judgment and settlement, and

As expected, the Second Circuit’s decision in a pending appeal involving Citibank paved the way for Judge Marrero to approve, in an opinion today, the SEC’s proposed $614 million settlement with SAC Capital. Judge Marrero initially expressed concern about the settlement being on a “neither-admit-nor-deny” basis, but, since then, a jury found former SAC Capital manager Matthew Martoma criminally liable for insider trading, and SAC Capital’s affiliate, CR Intrinsic, pled guilty to criminal insider trading. These facts appeared to assuage Judge Marrero’s earlier concerns:
Continue Reading Judge Marrero Approves $614 Million SAC Capital Settlement With SEC in Light of Second Circuit Ruling in Citi Case

In an opinion issued yesterday, Judge Scheindlin rejected a proposed settlement between the New Jersey Department of Enviornmental Protection and oil company Citgo over claims related to the potential contamination of water supplies with a kind of gasoline additive known as MTBE.  The non-settling defendants objected to the proposed $23 million settlement on the grounds that it did not fully account for Citgo’s proportionate share of liability. Judge Scheindlin sustained the objection:
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Rejects Proposed Settlement of Water Contamination Suit Against Citgo on Fairness Grounds

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Forrest rejected a proposed securities class action settlement in which the settlement class was defined identically to a class that she had earlier ruled could not be certified. The earlier certification denial was based in part on the plaintiffs’ failure to show class-wide reliance under the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption. The parties pointed Judge Forrest to the Second Circuit’s 2012 decision in In re AIG, Inc. Sec. Litig., which held that “[b]ecause settlement eliminates the need for trial, a settlement class ordinarily need not demonstrate that the fraud-on-the-market presumption applies to its claims in order to satisfy the predominance requirement.” But Judge Forrest ruled that the AIG case did not altogether eliminate the requirement that class-wide issues predominate, even for purposes of a settlement class, and that the parties had not made the necessary showing:
Continue Reading Judge Forrest Rejects Securities Class Action Settlement Because “Settlement Class” Failed Certification Standards