The Honorable Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United * States C ourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17 , 1998. He has been succeeded by the Honorable Pasco M. Bowman, II.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2132

___________ In Re: Piper Funds, Inc. * Institutional Government Income * Portfolio Litigation. *

------------------------------------------------ * Richard J. Rodney, Jr., * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Piper Funds, Inc. Institutional * Government Income Portfolio, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendants - Appellees. * * Leon J. Savoie, et al., * * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: April 13, 1998 Filed: July 24, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, LAY and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. *

___________The HONORABLE PAUL A. MAGNUSON, Chi ef Judge of the United States 1 District Court for the District of Minnesota. -2- PER CURIAM. App ellants are a class of trust settlors and beneficiaries. Their trustee , Merchants Trust Company of Burlington, Vermont, invested some $40 million in the PiperFu nds, Inc. Institutional Government Income Portfolio. When that investmen t s o ured, appellants sued Merchants in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Meanwhile, a secur ities class action brought in the District of Minnesota againstthe Portfolio and related defendants resulted in a settlement approved by th e district court. Merchants as trustee was the clas s member ostensibly entitled to the $4

1 to $4.5 million of settlement fund proceeds allocated to its Portfolio investments

. Merchants argued

it was entitled to these settlement proceeds outright, as an offset to voluntary payments it had made to restore appellants’ trusts. Appellants countered by filingtheir own claims as members of the Piper class, moving to intervene, objecting to the class action settlement because it provides for payment directly to Merchants , and asserting a claim for attorney’s fees out of the settlement fund.
The distr ict court concluded it had jurisdiction to adjudicate all aspects of th e class action litigation but declined to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction it migh t hav e to resolve the dispute between appellants and Merchants. The court denie d appellant s’ motion to intervene and their direct claims against the settlement fund

. Acknowl edging that the settlement class was broadly defined in the settlemen t agre ement, the court reasoned that allowing trust beneficiaries and their trustee t o participate in the settlement would result in a double recovery, and that th e beneficiaries should be excluded because they had nodirect cause of action against the Piper defendants. However, to protect the ben eficiaries’ interests vis-a-vis Merchants, the court invalidated Merchants’ Claim and Release Form to the extent it designated Merchants as Payee, directed that no distribution of settlement proceeds be made to-3-

Merchants for sixty days to give appellants an opportunity to seek further relief from a Vermont court, and ordered that any subsequent distribution to Merchants be made payable “to Merchants, as trustee for the Trust.” Finally, the court denied appellants’ claim for attorney’s fees from the settlement fund, concluding t hat appellants’ attorneys had not conferred benefit on any member of the settlement class. Appellants challenge the district co urt’s final order on numerous grounds, while the Piper class plaintiffs and c lass defendants join in urging us to affirm. After careful review of the record, we conclude the dist rict court made an appropriate disposition of the disputed portions of the settlement fund and did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and in deny ing appellants’ claim for an attorney’s fee award. The court carefully preserved ap pellants’ ability to litigate their unresolved claims against Merchants in Vermont, while ensuring that distribution of this portion of the settlement proceeds would serve to release claims of appellants and Merchants against the Piper class defendants. We conc lude that an extended opinion would be of no p recedential value. Accordingly, we summarily affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B

. Appellants’ motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum is denied. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.