Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06213/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06213-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETH MAXWELL STRATTON, CHAPTER 7

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE SGP

BENEFIT PLAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLACIER INSURANCE

ADMINISTRATORS, INC.; GLACIER

INSURANCE ENTERPRISES, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:02-cv-6213 OWW DLB

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter came before the undersigned for hearing on

September 18, 2006, and continued hearing on November 22, 2006,

pursuant to a motion brought by plaintiff Beth Maxwell Stratton

(“Stratton”) as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee of the SGP Benefit

Plan, Inc. (“SGP”), and as court appointed fiduciary for the SGP

Benefit Plan (“Plan”) and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust (“Trust”).

Stratton’s motion sought approval of settlements entered into

between Stratton and others, sought approval of Stratton’s final

report of administration and proposed plan for distribution of

the assets of SGP, the Plan and the Trust, requested issuance of

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 18
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

2

a permanent injunction protecting the settling parties from other

claims and litigation, and asked the Court to retain jurisdiction

to implement and enforce the proposed settlements. 

Stratton was present and represented at the hearing by

counsel Michael J. Seng. The named “Glacier Defendants” (Glacier

Insurance Administrators, Inc.; Glacier Insurance Enterprises,

Inc.; Fresno Agent Service Team, Inc. doing Business as Ben Mar

Insurance Services; Ben Mar Insurance Services; Lawrence

Thompson) were represented at the hearing by attorney William C.

Hahesy. Defendants Brad Stark, Pierre Tada, Norma Spalding, Dick

Neece, Sr., and William Wolhaupter (“Former Trustee Defendants”)

were represented at the hearing by attorney Donald Patrick

Sullivan. Non-parties, Sunkist Growers, Inc., a California

membership cooperative and its former employee Ted Jones

(“Sunkist”) were represented at the hearing by attorney Michael

H. Bierman. The United States Department of Labor, though not a

party to the action, appeared by attorney Robert Milgrim, its

counsel from the Office of the Solicitor. All of the foregoing

appeared in support of the relief sought by Stratton.

Also present were attorney Thomas J. Polis on behalf of

claimant Davita, Inc., and attorney Dennis M. Lynch for claimant

Kaweah Delta Healthcare District. Each objected to the

administration of his client’s particular claims, but not to the

substantive relief Stratton sought. Those objections have since

been resolved. The objections filed by Tenet Health systems

Hospital was denied at the September 18, 2006, hearing.

Notice of Stratton’s motion for said relief was approved by

this Court in an Order dated May 3, 2006, and served by mail on:

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 18
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

3

all parties to the action; Sunkist; all who filed claims in the

SGP bankruptcy; all who identified themselves as claimants in

response to Stratton’s Notice and solicitation of Proofs of Claim

(sent per this Court’s January 4, 2005, Order); and, all other

identifiable individuals and entities who participated in or who

had a claim processed by the Plan at any time during the period

January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2001. Approximately 30,000

notices were served more than sixty days before the September 18,

2006, hearing. Stratton’s July 14 and 17, 2006 Proofs of Service

regarding the Notice of hearing list all to whom notices were

sent.

The September 18, 2006, hearing on Stratton’s motion was

continued to November22, 2006, to enable Stratton to address and

try to resolve Davita, Inc., and Kaweah Delta Hospital District

objections to Stratton’s administration of their respective

claims and to give Stratton an opportunity to attempt to re-mail

returned Notices and report to the parties on her efforts to do

so. (See Stratton’s Declaration of Due Diligence in Serving

Notice of Hearing and her November 15, 2006, Declaration of

Service of Notice of Continued Hearing.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all points and authorities filed in connection

with this motion, the argument of counsel at the hearings hereof,

and the pleadings and papers on file, including orders previously

issued by the Court, the Court makes the following findings of

fact: 

1. SGP was created in August 1990 as a California

non-profit mutual benefit corporation for the purpose of

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 18
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

4

administering a voluntary employees’ benefit association, i.e., a

multiple employer welfare benefit plan (the Plan) under ERISA

section 3(40), 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1)(A).

2. The Plan suffered substantial losses in 1999 and 2000. 

In or about July 2001, the Plan stopped accepting new insureds.

In October 2001, the Plan ceased operation and, having no

measurable funds, paid no more claims. 

3. On or about February 25, 2002, SGP filed a petition in

the United States Bankruptcy Court of this district (case No.

0211653-A-7) for protection under Chapter 7 of the United States

Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Proceeding”). Stratton became

the duly qualified, appointed and acting Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Trustee of SGP. 

4. On October 1, 2002, Stratton initiated this action to

recover SGP’s, the Plan’s and the Trust’s losses from Sunkist,

Glacier, and the Former Trustee Defendants alleging, inter alia,

that the various defendants had breached contractual and/or other

duties owed to SGP, the Plan, and the Trust.

5. The reference to the bankruptcy court subsequently was

withdrawn, and the Bankruptcy Proceeding was consolidated in this

action. On or about May 29, 2003, this Court appointed Stratton

as Independent Fiduciary of the Plan and Trust. 

6. Thereafter, based in large part upon the United States

Department of Labor’s investigation into the management,

operation, finances, and bankruptcy of the Plan and Stratton’s

own investigation and discovery into, among other things, the

likelihood of satisfying judgments, Stratton undertook

arms-length settlement negotiations with the various defendants

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 4 of 18
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

5

and Sunkist. Those negotiations produced agreements from the

settling parties to pay the amounts indicated below subject to

various conditions spelled out in the written Settlement

Agreements (on file with Stratton’s Motion for Final Approval of

Settlements); all were expressly made subject to this Court’s

approving them and entering judgment to the effect that the

settlements barred all future claims against the settling

parties:

a. Sunkist agreed to pay a sum now set at $2,027,376; 

b. The Trustee Defendants agreed to pay the sum of $1

million plus such interest as accumulates on that sum after its

January 11, 2005, deposit with the Registry of this Court;

c. The Glacier Defendants agreed to pay the sum of $2

million plus such interest as accumulates on that sum after its

January 6, 2005, deposit with the Registry of this Court. 

7. There have been no objections to the proposed

settlements or to the other substantive relief Stratton seeks. 

(Objections that were filed sought only an increase in the

particular amount allowed on a few specific claims.) The

settlements were reached as a result of arms-length negotiation

by competent counsel after sufficient investigation and discovery

to enable Stratton to properly evaluate the claims and defenses. 

The contributions from each of the three groups of defendants are

fair, adequate, and reasonable. Considering the risks, costs,

complexity and substantial delay inherent in litigating

Stratton’s claims and collecting judgments if any are obtained,

the settlements appear to provide a better result and larger

recovery for all claimants and creditors of SGP, the Plan and

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 5 of 18
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

6

Trust than any realistically available alternative. 

Specifically:

a. The $2,027,376 to be paid by Sunkist is

reasonable, fair and adequate in light of Sunkist’s position that

its liability exposure is limited to the $1 million it pledged to

enable the Plan to meet California excess reserve requirements

and the $285,581 it received as licensing fees from the Plan. No

evidence of active malfeasance by Sunkist has been identified. 

It appears Sunkist’s role in the operation of the Plan was more

tangential than that of the other defendants. The sum to be paid

by Sunkist is proportional to, and reasonably related to, the

sums paid by the other settling parties, to the total loss

suffered by the Plan and to the likely relative exposure of

Sunkist.

b. Stratton’s investigation and discovery have failed

to give cause to believe that a significant judgment obtained

against any of the Former Trustee Defendants would be satisfied

by any of them. While SGP, Inc., had an Executive Protection

Policy and a Not-For-Profit Organizational Liability Policy, each

potentially providing up to $1 million liability coverage for

covered acts by trustees, the carrier maintains that the policies

do not cover any of Stratton’s claims herein. Moreover, both

policies are self-exhausting, i.e., every dollar spent on defense

costs reduces the amount available for indemnity, and the parties

anticipate it could cost in excess of $2 million to litigate

Stratton’s claims. In order to compromise and avoid further

litigation, the carrier has agreed to pay the full amount of the

Executive Protection Policy coverage and Stratton, after

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 6 of 18
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

7

considering applicable facts and law and consulting with

independent insurance counsel, has concluded that that offer is

fair and reasonable. Given the risks, costs and delay in

litigation and the fact that payment of the $1 million insurance

coverage would be the equivalent of $200,000 from each of the

five Former Trustee Defendants, more than Stratton at present has

reason to believe she could collect from each of them

individually, this settlement is found to be fair, reasonable,

and adequate and in the best interests of the Plan. It bears a

reasonable relationship to the Former Trustee Defendants’

relative likely exposure, to the sums paid by the other settling

parties, and the total loss suffered by the Plan.

c. Stratton’s investigation has similarly failed to

identify potential assets from which a judgment could be

satisfied against the Glacier Defendants except for a $5 million

Errors and Omissions liability insurance policy. The carrier

providing this insurance asserts Stratton’s claims are excluded

from coverage on multiple grounds. The Glacier Defendants had to

initiate litigation against the carrier to compel it to provide

even a defense to the Glacier Defendants. This policy also is a

self-exhausting one, and Stratton believes the Glacier

Defendants’ defense costs could reduce the policy benefits by $2

million or more while adding to the Plan’s cost of litigating

against the Glacier Defendants (and then against the carrier), so

that the net recovery to the Plan from even successful litigation

could be less than the $2 million the carrier has offered to pay

in settlement. In light of those circumstances, this settlement

too is found to bear a reasonable relationship to Glacier’s

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 7 of 18
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

8

likely exposure and to the sums paid by the other settling

parties and the total loss suffered by the Plan, and to be fair,

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Plan. 

8. Considering the substantial delay, risks and costs of

litigation generally and particularly in matters of such

magnitude and complexity as are presented in this litigation and

considering the risks of non-recovery even if a judgment were

obtained given the self-exhausting nature of defendants’

insurance policies and lack of identifiable assets sufficient to

satisfy judgments, the settlements with Sunkist, the Glacier

defendants and the former trustees (as identified hereinabove),

and each of them, are found to be fair, reasonable, and adequate,

reasonably proportional to the settling parties’ relative

exposures and in the best interests of SGP Benefit Plan, Inc.,

the SGP Benefit Plan and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust and the

beneficiaries, creditors and claimants thereof. Each of the said

settlements are approved on the terms set out herein and in the

settlement agreements between Stratton and the settling parties

(attached as Exhibits to Stratton’s Motion for Final Court

Approval).

9. On August 14, 2004, this Court gave its preliminary

approval to the three settlements and, as noted above, approved a

form of Notice to be used by Stratton to notify all potential

claimants of this action, the proposed settlements, and their

right to object to the relief Stratton sought. As noted, that

notice, advising of the requirement that all claimants submit a

formal Proof of Claim in the form approved by the Court, was

mailed and as appropriate re-mailed to some 30,000 potential

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 8 of 18
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

9

claimants as described above. 

10. Thereafter with the assistance of a licensed,

experienced and qualified third-party claims administrator for

self-insured health benefit plans, Stratton administered all

claims submitted in response to the Notice and determined the

amounts owing from the Plan on valid, timely, and unpaid claims

for medical care benefits.

11. The Court finds the following fees and expenses of

administration to be fair and reasonable, consistent with the

terms of applicable Plan documents and/or this Court’s orders,

and incurred in the best interests of SGP, the Plan and the

Trust, and Stratton is authorized to pay them:

a. To Stratton, as Bankruptcy Trustee, the sum of

$29,502.75, and as Independent Fiduciary, the sum of $37,752.50

based upon time spent by her through April 18, 2006, in those

capacities at the rate of $175 per hour, a rate well within the

realm of reasonable compensation for work of this kind in that

specialized field in the Central Valley of California. Stratton

also is entitled to compensation for her employees of $3,650.00

and reimbursement of expenses of $6,542.88. Both costs were

reasonably incurred by her on behalf of SGP, the Plan and the

Trust. Stratton is authorized to submit further fee applications

for time spent and costs incurred after April 18, 2006.

b. To the Trucker Huss law firm, a recognized San

Francisco authority in the ERISA field retained by the

Trustee/Independent Fiduciary to advise her on ERISA law and

legal issues unique thereto, the sum of $48,746.26, billed at

rates well within the realm of reasonable compensation for such

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 9 of 18
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

10

expert services.

c. To Seng & Stratton, the sum of $837,051.40 for

legal services rendered to the Trustee and Independent Fiduciary

through March 31, 2006, in investigating, researching, asserting,

and pursuing the Plan’s claims, negotiating and finalizing

settlements, and effectuating the procedures provided for in the

various settlement agreements. Such fees, in an amount less than

twenty percent (20%) of the total recovery (a standard

contingency contract in such a matter would likely be between

33-1/3 and 45 percent; 25% is considered the benchmark ((Six

Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers (9 Cir. 1990) 904 th

F.2d 1301, 1311))), are fair and reasonable given the extremely

complex nature of this litigation, the risks involved and the

results obtained. (Seng & Stratton is authorized to submit

further fee applications for hourly fees and costs incurred after

March 2006.)

d. To Janzen, Tamberi & Wong, accountants, the sum of

$12,600.00. Janzen, Tamberi & Wong may submit further fee

applications for fees and costs incurred after April 2006.

e. To McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth,

the sum of $945.00 for attorney services rendered.

f. To Law Office of Alyson Berg, the sum of $1,065.00

for attorney services rendered. 

g. The fees previously paid to Healthcomp Third Party

Administrators, Inc., in the sum of $222,623.52 are approved. 

Stratton is authorized to pay to Healthcomp such additional fees

as are reasonably necessary to complete administration of Plan

claims.

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 10 of 18
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

11

h. The remaining administrative expenses, both

incurred and future-estimated, described in Stratton’s Proposed

Distribution and her Motion for Final Approval of Settlements,

also are approved. 

12. Stratton’s Final Report of Administration of Bankruptcy

Trustee, set forth in her Motion for Final Court Approval of

Settlements, is approved.

13. After payment of the above-approved fees and costs, and

after setting aside funds to cover not-yet-approved and

future-estimated fees and costs, the balance of the funds

produced through settlements shall be distributed pro rata to the

claimants on the allowed amounts contained in Stratton’s Notices

to claimants as adjusted due to ongoing claims administration

activities. The proposed distribution is fair, reasonable and

consistent with the terms of applicable Plan documents and this

Court’s orders and is approved.

14. If after payment of all fees, costs and expenses, a

balance of at least $20,000 remains on hand, the remaining funds

shall be distributed pro rata to each claimant; if there is less

than $20,000 remaining after paying all approved costs and

expenses, a further distribution would not be cost-effective, and

so the excess will be deposited into the State of California

Unclaimed Property Fund for disbursement in accordance with

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1300, et seq.

15. As noted, the settlements are expressly conditioned

upon this Court entering an order protecting the settling

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 11 of 18
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 the case of the Glacier Defendants, the parties to be 1

protected by this Order specifically include Glacier Insurance

Administrators, Inc., Glacier Insurance Enterprises, Inc., in its

own name and doing business as Glacier Insurance Administrators,

Fresno Agent Service Team, Inc., in its own name and doing

business as Ben Mar Insurance Services, and Lawrence Thompson,

and the officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees,

independent contractors, attorneys, accountants, advisors,

consultants, insurers, and others acting for, under or in concert

with them in connection with SGP, the Plan or the Trust and the

heirs, executors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors,

predecessors, assigns, transferees and insurers of them.

12

parties, and each of them, from, and barring and enjoining, all 1

further claims of any kind against them related to SGP, the Plan,

or the Trust. Such an order is reasonable and appropriate under

the circumstances of this case; without it, the settling parties

would not enter into these or any other settlement because they

would be left exposed to future duplicate claims. 

16. The requested relief, including the permanent bar and

injunctive relief, is necessary and appropriate to aid this Court

in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the parties, Sunkist,

the persons, entities and others who filed claims in the SGP

bankruptcy, who filed Proofs of Claims with Stratton, and all who

are identified in Strattons July 14, July 17, and November 15,

2006, proofs of service of notice of the September 18, 2006, and

November 22, 2006, hearings herein. A true and correct copy of

the list of the foregoing mailings is attached hereto as Exhibit

“A” and by this reference incorporated herein.

17. The requested relief, including the permanent bar and

injunctive relief, is necessary to prevent frustration of the

settlement agreements entered into in this action and/or

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 12 of 18
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

13

frustration of orders and the judgment to be entered by this

Court.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under

sections 502(e)(1) and (f) of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §

1132(e)(1) and (f); supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(a), over the related state law claims; and, given

withdrawal of the reference of the SGP, Inc., bankruptcy to this

Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. 

2. The Court is empowered to grant the relief requested

herein insofar as it is related to the bankruptcy of the SGP

Benefit Plan, Inc., pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 105(a) and Rule

9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and, insofar as

it is related to the SGP Benefit Plan and Trust, pursuant to

ERISA and the All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. § 651. (U.S. v. IBT (2nd

Cir. 1990) 907 Fed.2d 277, 281; In Re Baldwin-United Corp.(2nd

Cir. 1985) 770 Fed.2d 283, 338; Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. (9th

Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1011) and ERISA (Firestone Tire and Rubber

Co. v. Bruch (1989) 489 U.S. 101, 110 [109 S.Ct. 948, 954]; and,

Cutler v. 65 SEC. Plan (E.D.N.Y. 1993) 831 F.Supp. 1008.)

3. Considering the substantial delay, risks and costs of

litigation generally and particularly in matters of such

magnitude and complexity as are presented in this litigation and

considering the risks of non-recovery even if a judgment were

obtained given the self-exhausting nature of defendants’

insurance policies and lack of identifiable assets sufficient to

satisfy judgments, the settlements with Sunkist, the Glacier

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 13 of 18
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

14

defendants and the former trustees (as identified hereinabove),

and each of them, are found to be fair, reasonable, and adequate,

reasonably proportional to the settling parties’ relative

exposures and in the best interests of SGP Benefit Plan, Inc.,

the SGP Benefit Plan and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust and the

beneficiaries, creditors and claimants thereof. Each of the said

settlements are approved on the terms set out herein and in the

settlement agreements between Stratton and the settling parties

(attached as Exhibits to Stratton’s Motion for Final Court

Approval).

4. The costs and expenses incurred on behalfof the Plan as

set out in Stratton’s Proposed Distribution and summarized in

Finding of Fact number 11 are approved as fair and reasonable and

in the best interests of SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., and the SGP

Benefit Plan and Trust and the claimants and creditors thereof. 

Stratton is authorized and directed to pay those costs and

expenses as provided herein at the time provided in paragraph 9

below.

5. After payment of approved administrative expenses, the

proposed payout to claimants, beneficiaries, and creditors of SGP

Benefit Plan, Inc., and the SGP Benefit Plan and SGP Benefit Plan

Trust provides for a greater distribution to such creditors and

claimants than any other reasonably available alternative relief

and is in the best interests of the claimants, creditors, and

beneficiaries of SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., and the SGP Benefit Plan

and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust. Stratton is authorized and

directed to distribute the net settlement funds after payment of

approved administrative expenses in the manner approved herein

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 14 of 18
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

 “Claimants” are defined as all participants, 2

beneficiaries, medical providers, employer groups, service

providers, health providers and creditors of SGP Benefit Plan,

Inc., SGP Benefit Plan, and/or the SGP Benefit Plan Trust and

their respective transferees, successors and assigns, and any and

all persons, groups of persons, partnerships, entities, medical

service providers, healthcare providers, employers, employer

organizations or other organizations who submitted claims or

proofs of claim in the SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., bankruptcy

proceeding and/or in this action.

 To include those identified in Footnote 1 of the Findings 3

of Fact.

15

and at the time provided in paragraph 9 below.

6. To effectuate the settlements and distributions

provided for herein, all Claimants, creditors, participants, and 2

beneficiaries of SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., the SGP Benefit Plan and

the SGP Benefit Plan Trust, recipients of settlement funds and

others, including those who filed claims in the bankruptcy court

and/or who were sent Stratton’s notice of need to file a Proof of

Claim and/or Notice of the September 18, 2006, hearing on

Stratton’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlements and/or

Stratton’s Notice of continued November 22, 2006, hearing and

specifically including all those shown on Strattons’ proofs of

service of Notice of said hearings dated July 14, July 17, and

November 15, 2006, (as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”) on

file herein shall be and hereby are permanently barred and

enjoined from initiating or pursuing any claims or actions

against SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., the SGP Benefit Plan, and/or the

SGP Benefit Plan Trust, or any of the settling parties (Sunkist,

the Former Trustee Defendants, and the Glacier Defendants as 3

identified hereinabove) relating in any way to SGP Benefit Plan,

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 15 of 18
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

16

Inc., the SGP Benefit Plan or the SGP Benefit Plan Trust,

including, but not limited to, claims or actions relating to: 

the creation, operation, management, administration, marketing or

failure of SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., the SGP Benefit Plan, and the

SGP Benefit Plan Trust; the payment or non-payment of benefits or

claims for services; or any promise, representation, contract or

other activity relating to SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., the SGP

Benefit Plan, and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust. 

7. Further, to effectuate the settlements and

distributions provided for herein, each and every person and

entity who accepts a check pursuant to the distribution plan

approved herein is, by endorsing, cashing, or otherwise

negotiating that check, deemed to have agreed to and will be

bound by the terms of the following:

Each claimant releases and forever discharges SGP, the

plan, the trust and the settling parties, and each of

them, from any and all claims relating in any manner to

SGP, the plan, or the trust and from the settling

parties’ acts, errors, conduct, administration, work,

services or activities of any type relating in any

manner to any of the foregoing, from the beginning of

time until the final order of judgment and dismissal

with prejudice is entered in this case. 

As part of the release, each such claimant further

understands and agrees that his/her/its claims may be

different and/or greater than currently perceived. 

Nevertheless, each such claimant understands and agrees

that this is a full and final settlement and release of

all such claims that claimant may possibly have now or

in the future against any of the settling parties. Each

such claimant hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives

all rights and/or benefits provided to him/her/it under

section 1542 of the California Civil Code, and the

comparable statutes of all other states. Said Civil

Code section 1542 provides as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims

which the creditor does not know or suspect

to exist in his favor at the time ofexecuting

the release, which, if known by him must have

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 16 of 18
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

17

materially affected his settlement with the

debtors ;”

8. If the time for filing an appeal of this order expires

or an appeal is filed but results in final affirmation of this

Court’s order and judgment, Stratton shall at that time petition

this Court for release of the settlement funds and all interest

accumulated thereon from the Court’s Registry for her use in

payment of expenses and claims as provided above. If an appeal

is filed and an appellate court overrules this Court’s entry of

final judgment or remands the action to this Court for

reconsideration in a way which effects a material change to the

terms of any settlement, the Court shall release the settlement

funds from the Registry of the Court and return them to the

settling parties and the Settlement Agreements will be deemed

void ab initio and of no effect.

9. Once this Court’s orders have become final and all

prerequisites and conditions of settlement have been satisfied

and Stratton has paid SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., SGP Benefit Plan

and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust costs and expenses and distributed

settlement funds to the claimants and creditors of SGP Benefit

Plan, Inc., the SGP Benefit Plan and the SGP Benefit Plan Trust

as provided herein and deposited all remaining undistributed

funds into the California Unclaimed Property Fund as set out

above, Stratton shall report to the Court and all parties to this

action that she has completed the distribution and seek this

Court’s order closing the SGP Benefit Plan, Inc., Bankruptcy

Proceeding and terminating the Plan and the Trust and discharging

SGP and Stratton.

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 17 of 18
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

18

10. The terms of the parties’ settlement agreements

attached to Stratton’s motion for final court approval are

incorporated herein. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over

he plaintiff and the settling parties to ensure compliance with

the terms of the settlement and the orders of this Court and to

enforce all of the relief, including the permanent bar and

injunctive relief, requested and granted in this case. (Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America (1994) 511 U.S. 375, 381;

114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677; 128 L.Ed.2d 391.; Hagestad v. Tragesser

(9 Cir. 1995) 49 F.3d 1430, 1432.) th

DATED: November 22, 2006.

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

 United States District Court

Case 1:02-cv-06213-LJO-GSA Document 175 Filed 11/22/06 Page 18 of 18