Court Opinion

ID: 9410885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 21:06:33.984499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:01.063292
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                         OF THE
                                   STATE OF DELAWARE
  MORGAN T. ZURN                                                   LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
  VICE CHANCELLOR                                                     500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                     WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                                           July 24, 2023

Michael J. Barry, Esquire                             Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.                               Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7th Floor                        920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801                                  Wilmington, DE 19801

Thomas Curry, Esquire                                 Theodore A. Kittila, Esquire
Saxena White P.A.                                     Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP
824 North Market Street, Suite 1003                   5801 Kennett Pike, Suite C/D
Wilmington, DE 19801                                  Wilmington, DE 19807

Gregory V. Varallo, Esquire                           Anthony A. Rickey, Esquire
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP              Margrave Law LLC
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901                        3411 Silverside Road
Wilmington, DE 19801                                  Baynard Building, Suite 104
                                                      Wilmington, DE 19810
Katherine J. Sullivan, Esquire
Wilks Law, LLC
4250 Lancaster Pike, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19805

           RE: In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
               Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ

  Dear Counsel:

        I write in response to two recent filings: the parties’ July 22, 2023 letter (the
  “Letter”), and Rose Izzo’s Motion for Clarification Or, Alternatively, For
  Maintaining Of Status Quo Order Pending Appeal (the “Motion”).1

  1
      Docket item (“D.I.”) 582 [hereinafter “Ltr.”]; D.I. 583.
In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
July 24, 2023
Page 2 of 6

      The Letter enclosed an addendum to the April 7, 2023 Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release and a Revised Proposed
Order and Final Judgment.2 The addendum revises paragraph A.1(r) (the
“Release”) of the parties’ settlement stipulation as reflected below.

           “Released Plaintiffs’ Claims” means any and all actions, causes of
           action, suits, liabilities, claims, rights of action, debts, sums of money,
           covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, damages,
           contributions, indemnities, and demands of every nature and
           description, whether or not currently asserted, whether known claims or
           Unknown Claims, suspected, existing, or discoverable, whether arising
           under federal, state, common, or foreign law, and whether based on
           contract, tort, statute, law, equity, or otherwise (including, but not
           limited to, federal and state securities laws), that Plaintiffs or any other
           Settlement Class Member: (i) asserted in the Allegheny Complaint or
           the Munoz [Franchi] Complaint; or (ii) ever had, now have, or hereafter
           can, shall, or may have, directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any
           other capacity that, in full or part, concern, relate to, arise out of, or are
           in any way connected to or based upon the allegations, transactions,
           facts, matters, occurrences, representations, or omissions involved, set
           forth, or referred to in the Complaints and that relate to the ownership of
           Common Stock and/or AMC Preferred Equity Units during the Class
           Period, except claims with regard to enforcement of the Settlement and
           this Stipulation.3
The revised proposed order reflects the addendum.4

       In the Letter, the parties request (1) “that the Court approve the settlement
on the revised terms and pursuant to the enclosed Proposed Final Judgment”; and
(2) that the Court stay its order directing the plaintiffs to submit a consolidated
complaint and the parties to submit a schedule for the remainder of the litigation.5

2
    Ltr.
3
 D.I. 165 [hereinafter “Stip.”] ¶ A.1(r) (emphasis and strikethrough added to reflect D.I.
582, Ex. 1).
4
    D.I. 582 at Revised Proposed Order and Final Judgment at 4.
5
    Ltr. at 3.
In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
July 24, 2023
Page 3 of 6

The parties argue “additional notice need not be provided prior to settlement
approval” because the changes to the proposed settlement do not “adversely affect
the class.”6
     The Motion seeks clarification as to the effect of my July 21 opinion (the
“Opinion”)7 on the stay of all proceedings against the defendants imposed by the
May 1, 2023 scheduling order,8 and on the February 27, 2023 status quo order.9
       I have plucked the low-hanging fruit from the Letter and the Motion and
offer what guidance I can. First: the parties need not re-notice the proposed
settlement. The Release as trimmed by the Letter is narrower than the version
included in the notice to stockholders.10 The parties excised the clause releasing
APE claims because the Court rejected that clause as legally impermissible.11
Removing a clause that has no legal effect does not adversely affect the putative
class.12 Still, as I have ordered in this case to date,13 the July 22 Letter, all of its

6
    Id. at 2–3 & n.1 (emphasis omitted).
7
  See generally In Re AMC Ent. Hldgs., Inc. S’holder Litig., --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL
4677722 (Del. Ch. 2023). The opinion is also available at D.I. 581.
8
    D.I. 185 ¶ 24.
9
    D.I. 10.
10
   See Shaffer v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 362 Fed. App’x 627, 631 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although
changes were made to the release after potential class members received the notice, the
changes did not render the notice inadequate because they narrowed the scope of the
release.”). “Judicial interpretation of the Federal Rules respecting class actions . . . [is]
persuasive authority for the interpretation of Court of Chancery Rule 23.” Buttonwood
Tree Value P’rs, L.P. v. R. L. Polk & Co., 2022 WL 2255258, at *3 (Del. Ch.
June 23, 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Countrywide Corp.
S’holders Litig., 2009 WL 846019, at *12 n.84 (Del. Ch. Mar. 31, 2009)).
11
     See generally AMC, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 4677722.
12
    See In re: Digex, Inc. S’holders Litig., 2001 WL 34131305, at *2 (Del. Ch.
Apr. 6, 2001) (holding that “no additional notice to the class is required and that no
additional period for objection will be permitted” where changes to the settlement
stipulation between the date of the stipulation and the effective date would not
“materially alter the terms of the Stipulation” or “materially impact the class members’
decision whether to approve the Settlement”); see also, e.g., Keepseagle v. Vilsack, 102
F. Supp. 3d 306, 313 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Accordingly, courts generally find that Rule 23(e)
In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
July 24, 2023
Page 4 of 6

enclosures, and this letter, should be posted on the websites for AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and the plaintiffs’ counsel no later than 8:00
p.m. ET today, June 24.
       Second: the Opinion is not a “final determination of whether the Settlement
should be approved.”14 The Opinion pointed out the Release was unsound and
could not be approved, and encouraged the defendants to weigh the risk from a
narrower release.15 In so many words, the Opinion gave the parties an opportunity
to narrow the Release, following a nuance of class action practice before this Court
and as contemplated by the plaintiffs’ counsel at oral argument.16 If the parties did
not choose that path, the Opinion directed the parties to submit a consolidated

applies to a modification of a previously approved settlement only when the settlement
will be ‘materially alter[ed].’ Phrased more specifically, an amendment requires
supplemental notice only when it ‘would have a material adverse effect on the rights of
class members.’” (citations omitted) (quoting In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d
163, 175 n.10, 182 (3d Cir. 2013), and then In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liability Litig., 2010
WL 2735414, at *6 (E.D. Pa. July 2, 2010))); Knuckles v. Elliott, 2016 WL 3912816, at
*6 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2016) (granting final approval of class action settlement without
requiring another round of notice or another fairness hearing even though the parties had
amended the settlement agreement after the fairness hearing because the amended
agreement did not adversely affect class members’ rights); Harris v. Graddick, 615
F.Supp. 239, 244 (M.D. Ala. 1985) (finding additional notice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e) unnecessary where an amendment is narrow and it is apparent that
interests of the class are not substantially impaired).
13
  See, e.g., D.I. 454 at 5 n.21 (“I repeat my insistence that the parties update the specified
websites today, and every day a noted report or order is issued, to comply with paragraph
72 of the notice.”); D.I. 312 at 2–3 (“More fundamentally, I insist that counsel and AMC
update their websites today to post the materials promised in paragraph 72 of the notice
sent to stockholders.” (footnote omitted)); D.I. 185, Ex. 1, Notice of Pendency of
Stockholder Class Action and Proposed Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear ¶ 72.
14
     D.I. 185 ¶ 24.
15
     AMC, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 4677722, at *26.
16
  See Firefighters’ Pension Sys. of the City of Kansas City, Mo. Tr. v. Presidio, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL, D.I. 233 at 49–51 (Nov. 7, 2022) (TRANSCRIPT);
Schumacher v. Loscalzo, C.A. No. 2022-0059-LWW, D.I. 70 at 63 (Del. Ch.
Sept. 21, 2022) (TRANSCRIPT); see AMC, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 4677722, at *25.
In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
July 24, 2023
Page 5 of 6

complaint, a task they should have accomplished weeks ago.17 This request did not
lift the stay imposed by the May 1 scheduling order. The stay remains in place.

      Third: the Letter’s request to stay my request for a consolidated complaint
and case schedule is granted.

      Fourth: as for the status quo order, the Opinion stated, “The status quo order
remains in place.”18

      That is all the guidance I can offer today. I ask that the parties submit the
following:

          a. Notice of business needs on the horizon. The defendants represented that
             they needed a decision before the capital markets go quiet in August.19
             The Court has made all efforts to meet that business need. I raised my
             concerns about the Release with counsel at the settlement hearing in
             June.20 Instead of addressing those concerns, the parties let the month of
             July pass, and only sought to amend the Release after I concluded the
             Release was unsound. Please advise, with as much detail as possible, as
             to any events or circumstances compelling a decision by a certain date.

17
     AMC, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 4677722, at *28.
18
     Id. at *11.
19
    E.g., D.I. 217 at 18 (“And so I guess the question I’m asking is: Can we truncate it a
little bit? And obviously we need to work backwards from a hearing date. But from the
perspective of capital raising, once we get into the late summer, that is typically a quiet
period. So I’m a little worried about this dragging -- a little -- fairly worried about this
dragging into the fall.”); id. at 19 (“I do agree with Mr. Neuwirth, there was a desire on
the company’s part for reasons that, frankly, we are sympathetic to, to be able to do a
fundraising before the markets basically shut down in August.”).
20
   AMC, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 4677722, at *25 (“I raised the fact that the Release
included APE claims released by common stockholders at argument to Plaintiffs and the
defendants.” (citing D.I. 578 at 68, 79, 127)).
In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
July 24, 2023
Page 6 of 6

         b. Letter briefs, joint or separate, on the effect of the Delaware Supreme
            Court’s June 28, 2023 decision in Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc. on the
            proposed settlement and the plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim.21
         c. Any response to the Motion, particularly its preemptive request for a stay
            on lifting the status quo order if the settlement is approved pending
            appeal, or a letter stating that no response will be forthcoming.
         d. Another revised proposed order and final judgment omitting Mr. Munoz
            as plaintiff, and with a version in Microsoft Word.

Because the narrowed Release does not adversely affect the putative class, the
Court will not consider any new or supplemented objections.22 Other than the
advocacy requested above, the record on the proposed settlement is closed.

                                                      Sincerely,

                                                      /s/ Morgan T. Zurn

                                                      Vice Chancellor

MTZ/ms

cc:      All Counsel of Record, via File & ServeXpress

21
     --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 4239581 (Del. 2023).
22
  Cf. Keepseagle, 102 F. Supp. 3d at 313 (“If the fairness hearing leads to substantial
changes adversely affecting some members of the class, additional notice, followed by an
opportunity to be heard, might be necessary.” (quoting David F. Herr, Ann. Manual for
Complex Litig. § 21.61 (4th ed.))).