Seigal v. Merrick
590 F.2d 35, 26 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 556 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order by a district court disapproving a proposed settlement in a stockholder derivative action is not an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and does not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
Facts:
- Shareholders of Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. ('Fox') initiated two separate derivative lawsuits on behalf of the corporation.
- The lawsuits were brought against certain defendant-directors of Fox.
- The central allegation in the lawsuits concerned the granting of stock options to these defendant-directors.
- The plaintiffs and the defendant-directors reached a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the litigation.
- The terms of the proposed settlement involved granting the defendant-directors options to purchase company stock at a specific price, with certain restrictions, in exchange for a consideration.
- Objecting shareholders argued that the proposed settlement was illusory and unfair to Fox.
Procedural Posture:
- Shareholders filed two derivative actions on behalf of Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. against its directors in the U.S. District Court.
- The parties negotiated and submitted a proposed stipulation of settlement to the District Court for approval as required by F.R.Civ.P. 23.1.
- Other shareholders filed objections, challenging the fairness of the proposed settlement.
- The District Court refused to approve the settlement.
- The original plaintiff-shareholders and the defendant-directors (appellants) appealed the District Court's order of disapproval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. and the objectors to the settlement (appellees) moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the order was not appealable.
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 refusing to approve a proposed settlement in a stockholder derivative action an immediately appealable final order under the collateral order doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Gurfein, Circuit Judge
No. A district court's refusal to approve a settlement in a stockholder derivative action is not an appealable final order. Such an order does not terminate the litigation, as the parties may still proceed to trial or propose a different settlement. It fails to meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. and further clarified in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, because it does not 'conclusively determine the disputed question.' Unlike an approval, which becomes a final judgment, a disapproval is an interlocutory step in the litigation process, akin to a non-appealable denial of summary judgment. Allowing an immediate appeal would improperly thrust the appellate court into the trial process, undermine the trial judge's discretionary role in managing such complex cases, and could lead to a series of piecemeal appeals if subsequent settlement proposals were also rejected.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of the final judgment rule, limiting the scope of the collateral order doctrine to prevent piecemeal appeals. By holding that a settlement disapproval is not immediately appealable, the court prioritizes judicial efficiency and the trial court's authority to manage complex litigation like derivative suits. This ruling created a direct circuit split with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Norman v. McKee, highlighting a key jurisdictional disagreement on when appellate courts can intervene in the settlement process of representative actions. The decision signals a preference for letting the trial process run its course to a final judgment before appellate review is invoked, thereby preserving the distinct roles of trial and appellate courts.
