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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Di Donato, Individually and On 

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00302-PHX-NVW

ORDER APPROVING PLANS FOR

ALLOCATING NET SETTLEMENT 

FUNDS

This matter came on for hearings in connection with separate settlements achieved 

in the above-captioned class action (“Action”) with each of defendants Darryl S. Baker, 

John N. Kapoor, and Michael L. Babich (collectively, the “Settlements”) on Class 

Representative’s motions (Docs. 405, 409, 424) to determine whether the proposed plan of 

allocation (“Plan of Allocation”) of the net settlement funds created by the Settlements 

should be approved.1 The Plan of Allocation is the same for all three Settlements. Docs. 

407-2, Ex. B, App. A; 411-2, Ex. B, App. A, 426-2, Ex. B., App. A.

1 The Court held a final hearing for each of the Settlements (collectively, the 

“Settlement Fairness Hearings”). The final hearing for the Baker Settlement was held on 

September 23, 2020 the final hearing for the Kapoor Settlement was held on October 15, 

2020; and the final hearing for the Babich Settlement was held on November 18, 2020.

Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW Document 440 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement Fairness 

Hearings and otherwise; and it appearing that notice of the Settlements and Settlement 

Fairness Hearings substantially in the forms approved by the Court was mailed to all Class 

Members who or which could be identified with reasonable effort, and that a summary 

notice of the Settlements and Settlement Fairness Hearings substantially in the forms 

approved by the Court were published in Investor’s Business Daily and transmitted over 

PR Newswire pursuant to the specifications of the Court set forth in each of its Orders 

preliminarily approving the Settlements (Docs. 347, 373, 402); and the Court having 

considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed Plan of 

Allocation,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Class Representative’s 

motions (Docs. 405, 409, 424).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. This Order approving the proposed Plan of Allocation incorporates by 

reference the definitions in: (i) the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement Between Lead 

Plaintiff and Defendant Darryl S. Baker dated May 22, 2020 (Doc. 341-1); (ii) the 

Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement Between Lead Plaintiff and Defendant John N. 

Kapoor dated July 1, 2020 (Doc. 371-1); and (iii) the Stipulation and Agreement of 

Settlement Between Lead Plaintiff and Defendant Michael L. Babich dated July 21, 2020 

(Doc. 399-1) (collectively, the “Stipulations”) and all terms not otherwise defined herein 

shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulations.

2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order approving the proposed Plan of 

Allocation, and over the subject matter of the Action and all parties to the Action, including 

all Class Members.

3. Notice of Class Representative’s motions for approval of the proposed Plan 

of Allocation was given to all Class Members who or which could be identified with 

reasonable effort. The forms and methods of notifying the Class of the motions for approval 

Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW Document 440 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

of the proposed Plan of Allocation satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process 

Clause), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-1, 78u-4), 

as amended, and all other applicable law and rules, constituted the best notice practicable 

under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities 

entitled thereto.

4. In the aggregate, more than 93,900 Postcard Settlement Notices and more 

than 12,600 long-form Settlement Notices for the Settlements were mailed to potential 

Class Members and nominees, and the long-form Settlement Notices for the Settlements, 

which included the Plan of Allocation, were posted on the Website. Docs. 407-2, 411-2, 

426-2. An additional 886 long-form Settlement Notices (including the Plan of Allocation) 

were downloaded from the Website. Docs. 423-1, 426-2.

5. There are no objections to the Plan of Allocation.

6. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of 

the claims of Claimants as set forth in the Plan of Allocation provides a fair and reasonable 

basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of each Net Settlement Fund among Class 

Members with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and 

necessity.

7. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation is, in all 

respects, fair and reasonable to the Class. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the Plan 

of Allocation proposed by Class Representative.

8. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court’s approval of the Plan of 

Allocation shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.

Dated this 18th day of November, 2020.

Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW Document 440 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 3