Norman v. McKee
431 F.2d 769, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 428 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order disapproving a proposed settlement in a shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit is an immediately appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were investors in the Insurance Securities Trust Fund (the Fund) since 1963.
- Insurance and Securities Incorporated (ISI) served as the Fund's manager, underwriter, and investment advisor.
- ISI charged investors and the Fund several fees, including a 'management' fee, a 'creation' fee for selling new shares, and brokerage fees for executing portfolio transactions.
- The plaintiffs alleged these fees were excessive, claiming they totaled over $20 million between 1962 and 1965.
- The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the Fund and all investors, sought recovery of these allegedly excessive fees from ISI.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Insurance Securities Trust Fund, its manager ISI, and others.
- After discovery, the named parties negotiated a settlement agreement.
- The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the district court for approval as required by federal rules.
- During court hearings, several unnamed investors appeared to formally oppose the settlement.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a brief as amicus curiae (friend of the court).
- The district court issued an order disapproving the proposed settlement, finding it inadequate and unfair.
- The named plaintiffs and defendants, as appellants, appealed the district court's order of disapproval to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a district court's order disapproving a proposed settlement in a class action and shareholder derivative suit an appealable 'final decision' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?
Opinions:
Majority - Battin, District Judge
Yes. An order disapproving a proposed settlement is an appealable final decision. Such an order falls within the 'collateral order doctrine' established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation. The court's disapproval of a settlement is a final determination of a right that is separate from, and collateral to, the merits of the underlying lawsuit. It is not a step toward the final disposition of the case and will not merge into the final judgment. The court must balance 'the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other.' In complex and lengthy cases like shareholder derivative suits, the danger of denying justice by delaying review of a potentially fair settlement outweighs the inconvenience of piecemeal review. Therefore, the order is immediately appealable. On the merits, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in disapproving the settlement, as he properly acted as a guardian for the unnamed class members and found the settlement inadequate compared to the relief sought.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies an important exception to the final judgment rule, which typically prohibits appeals until a case is fully resolved. By applying the collateral order doctrine to the disapproval of class action settlements, the court acknowledges the unique practicalities of such litigation. This ruling empowers parties who have spent significant resources negotiating a settlement to seek immediate appellate review if a district court rejects their agreement, rather than being forced into a potentially lengthy and expensive trial. It reinforces the finality of a decision on the settlement itself as distinct from the finality of the overall case, promoting efficiency and preventing district courts from single-handedly blocking potentially fair resolutions without recourse.
