midpage
Sign in to see your projects.
453 B.R. 84
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • Debtor Partsearch Technologies, Inc. filed for Chapter 11; assets later sold to Best Buy.
  • Plaintiff Craig Wenzel filed a class action on behalf of employees asserting WARN Act claims.
  • Settlement class defined as 192 former employees at Kingston, NY and New York, NY facilities.
  • Settlement proposes $183,000 total, including $2,500 to plaintiff, $135,375 to class, and $45,125 to Class Counsel.
  • Settlement releases defendants from liability but is non-binding for opt-outs; no class members opted out.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the Settlement Class was properly certified Wenzel argues Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements met Defendants contend class structure is appropriate for settlement Yes; class certification for settlement purposes satisfied Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) requirements
Whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate Settlement balances risks and avoids costly trial Settlement reduces exposure given uncertainties and defenses Yes; settlement deemed procedurally and substantively fair under Rule 23 and 9019
Whether Class Counsel's fee award is proper Fees requested are reasonable given hours and risks Fees appropriate as part of settlement Yes; fees awarded in amount of $45,125 (25% of Settlement) as reasonable under 23(h) and 54(d)(2)

Key Cases Cited

  • Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class certification and settlement approval framework)
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (class action settlement fairness and predominance/superiority)
  • City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974) (relevant Grinnell factors for settlement fairness)
  • In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc., 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992) ( Bankruptcy Rule 9019 settlement analysis framework)
  • Savino v. Computer Credit Inc., 164 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (counsel qualification and adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4))
  • Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982) (due process and notice considerations in class settlements)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Wenzel v. Partsearch Technologies, Inc. (In Re Partsearch Technologies, Inc.)
Court Name: United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Jun 21, 2011
Citations: 453 B.R. 84; 55 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 17; 2011 WL 2456227; 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 2245; 18-01760
Docket Number: 18-01760
Court Abbreviation: Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Log In