Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc., 895

• Decision Date: 12 September 1979
• Docket Number: D,No. 895,895
• Citation: 606 F.2d 354
• Parties: Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,121 Leo M. SHORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARKLANE HOSIERY COMPANY, INC., Herbert N. Somekh, Defendants-Appellees, v. Angelo C. PAPPALARDO et al., Intervening Stockholders-Appellants. ocket 79-7001.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 354

606 F.2d 354

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,121

Leo M. SHORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARKLANE HOSIERY COMPANY, INC., Herbert N. Somekh, Defendants-Appellees, v. Angelo C. PAPPALARDO et al., Intervening Stockholders-Appellants.

No. 895, Docket 79-7001.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued April 4, 1979.

Decided Sept. 12, 1979.

Arthur M. Wisehart, New York City (Wisehart, Friou & Koch, New York City, Frederick J. Cuccia, New York City, on brief), for intervening stockholders-appellants.

Jack B. Levitt, New York City (Goldman, Cooperman & Levitt, New York City, on brief), for defendants-appellees.

Samuel K. Rosen, New York City (Kass, Goodkind, Wechsler & Labaton, New York City, on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MULLIGAN, TIMBERS and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:

This appeal adds another chapter to the already lengthy litigation of Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co. In the last chapter, the Supreme Court affirmed our determination that principles of collateral estoppel barred defendants from relitigating in this private action the question whether certain proxy solicitations were fraudulent and misleading, ¹ a question that had been answered affirmatively in an earlier enforcement action instituted by the Securities Exchange Commission. ² While the Supreme Court was considering that question, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, of which they seek judicial approval. Certain class members, contending that the settlement is inadequate, have now moved to intervene and stay the approval proceedings pending resolution of state court stock appraisal litigation or, in the alternative, to hold a preliminary hearing regarding the adequacy of the named plaintiff's representation during the settlement negotiations. The district judge denied these motions except that he granted limited intervention permitting intervenors to participate in the settlement approval hearings. The intervenors have appealed.

In 1974 Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc., issued a proxy statement in connection with its planned going-private "freezeout" merger. ³ The statement contained an offer to purchase shares from the frozen-out shareholders at $2 per share. Ninety percent of the shareholders accepted the offer; the other ten percent dissented and began an appraisal proceeding in the New York courts pursuant to section 623 of the New York Business Corporation Law to determine the fair market value of the stock, which they estimate at over $10 per share. The appraisal proceeding, begun in 1975, has not yet been concluded.

Shortly after the merger was authorized, Leo Shore filed the instant securities action, alleging violations of the proxy solicitation laws by Parklane and its directors. The district judge granted class certification, and the required notice issued to all class members, including those involved in the appraisal proceeding (the appraisal group). After the SEC successfully prosecuted a parallel enforcement action against these defendants, Shore moved for, but was denied, summary judgment on the ground of collateral estoppel. We reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The parties then entered into the settlement agreement, which provides that Parklane will create a $205,000 fund from which $65,000 will be paid to Shore's attorneys and the remainder distributed to the shareholders. The settlement agreement also provides that members of the appraisal group may opt out of the class prior to judicial approval of the settlement without prejudice to the continued pursuit of their individual claims.

When the parties appeared before the district judge to work out the procedure for approving the settlement, the appraisal group sought to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), and as a matter of discretion under Rule 23(d)(2), for the purpose of moving for a stay pending resolution of the appraisal proceeding. Alternatively, they requested a hearing on the adequacy of Shore's representation. They alleged that Shore's attorney had inadequate knowledge of the stock's actual fair market value, that Shore himself was in league with defendant Somekh, and that the settlement negotiations were conducted secretly in order to avoid any confrontation with the appraisal group. Appellees disputed the truth of these allegations, contending that Shore and Somekh barely knew each other, that the appraisal group's estimate of the stock's fair market value was nothing more than wishful thinking, and that, in any event, the appraisal group had no right to complain because its members were adequately protected by the opt-out provision of the settlement agreement.

On November 21, 1978, the district judge denied the motion for full intervention but granted appellants limited intervention for the purpose of participating in the settlement approval hearings. The district judge also denied the alternative motion for a preliminary hearing but required that the proposed settlement notice be amended to state in more explicit detail the relief demanded in the complaint. The appraisal group filed this appeal on December 20, 1978.

On January 9, 1979, the Supreme Court affirmed our determination that defendants' liability was established conclusively by the collateral estoppel effect of the earlier SEC action. On February 20, 1979, the district judge tentatively approved the settlement notice, which had been modified in accordance with the November 21 order, and stayed further proceedings pending this appeal.

In considering appellants' contentions, we are met at the outset with the question whether the order appealed from should be treated as the grant or the denial of intervention. See Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 497 F.2d 180, 181 (9th Cir. 1974). A denial of leave to intervene of right is appealable as a final order. New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of the University, 516 F.2d 350, 351 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1975). An order granting intervention is not. Ionian Shipping Co. v. British Law Insurance Co., 426 F.2d 186, 188 (2d Cir. 1970). The reason for this distinction is that the unsuccessful applicant for intervention cannot appeal from any subsequent order or judgment in the litigation, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 331 U.S. 519, 524, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947), and so far as he is concerned, "the lawsuit is all over." Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 513, 70 S.Ct. 322, 94 L.Ed. 299 (1950). The successful intervenor, on the other hand, acquires "full status" to prosecute a subsequent appeal. Klein v. Nu-Way Shoe Co., Inc., 136 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir. 1943).

In amending Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), the Advisory Committee on Rules suggested that intervention of right under the Rule might be "subject to appropriate conditions or restrictions responsive among other things to the requirements of efficient conduct of the proceedings." 28 U.S.C.A., Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules at p. 18; See Ionian Shipping Co. v. British Law Insurance Co., supra, 426 F.2d at 191. This was not an innovative suggestion but was instead the recognition of a well-established practice. See Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 541 n. 15, 90 S.Ct. 733, 24 L.Ed.2d 729 (1970); United States v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 303 F.2d 823, 826, 829 (2d Cir.) Cert. denied 371 U.S. 942, 83 S.Ct. 323, 9 L.Ed.2d 276 (1962); Klein v. Nu-Way Shoe Co., Inc., supra, 136 F.2d at 989; Hall County Historical Society, Inc. v. Georgia Department of Transportation, 447 F.Supp. 741, 746 n. 1 (N.D.Ga.1978); Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 73 F.R.D. 269, 288-89 (N.D.Cal.), Modified on other grounds, 73 F.R.D. 289 (N.D.Cal.1976); Harris v. General Coach Works, 37 F.R.D. 343, 347 (E.D.Mich.1964). We conclude that the district court followed this established practice and that his order was a grant of intervention under Rule 24.

We then move on to the question whether the district court's order permitting restricted intervention is a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Generally, an order may not be appealed unless it is a final decision which "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). To qualify as an exception to this statutory requirement of finality, the order must "conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2458, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978).

The order appealed from does not meet these requirements. It made appellants parties to the litigation, thus giving them the right to appeal from an unsatisfactory final order. On that appeal, this Court may review the district court's refusal to grant all of appellants' requested...