From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Luxottica Group

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jul 29, 2005
No. 01-CV-3285 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2005)

Opinion

No. 01-CV-3285.

July 29, 2005

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Herz LLP, David L. Wales, Esq., Daniel W. Krasner, Esq., Matthew M. Guiney, Esq., New York, NY, For Plaintiff Greenway Partners, L.P.

Winston Strawn LLP, Eric M. Nelson, Esq., Joseph A. DiBenedetto, Esq., New York, NY, For Defendants Luxottica Group, S.p.A., Shade Acquisition and Leonardo Del Vecchio.

Proskauer Rose LLP, Stefanie S. Kraus, Esq., David M. Lederkramer, Esq., New York, NY, For Defendant James N. Hauslein.

Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Michael D. Torpey, Esq., San Francisco, CA, For Defendants Sunglass Hut Directors.


ORDER


The parties are directed to submit a revised notice to the class that only addresses the pendency of the class action. The inclusion of the notice of the proposed partial settlement, as reflected in the version submitted by the parties, seems likely to be confusing to the class.

It does not seem possible at this time for the court to evaluate whether the proposed partial settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate," given that the total recovery — by settlement or trial — is not known yet.

The parties are also directed to report their agreed-upon briefing schedule for defendants' summary judgment motion. This motion will be heard on September 23, 2005, as previously ordered.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Luxottica Group

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jul 29, 2005
No. 01-CV-3285 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2005)
Case details for

In re Luxottica Group

Case Details

Full title:In re LUXOTTICA GROUP, S.p.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Jul 29, 2005

Citations

No. 01-CV-3285 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2005)