Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 1
| Decision Date | 07 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | D,90-15451,90-16383 and 90-16446,90-15453,No. 1,Nos. 90-15380,1,s. 90-15380 |
| Citation | 955 F.2d 1268 |
| Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,507 CLASS PLAINTIFFS; Chemical Bank, in its representative capacity as Trustee for Bondholders, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF SEATTLE; Public Utility Districtof Ferry County, Washington; Public Utility Districtof Kittitas County, Washington; Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington; Small Utilities Group, Alder Mutual Light Company; City of Blaine, Washington, City of Sumas, Washington; Orcas Power & Light Company, Washington; Public Utility Districtof Pend Oreille County, Washington; Washington Public Utilities Group; Public Utility Districtof Mason County; Town of Steilacoom; Chelan County Public Utility District, Douglas County Public Utility District; Grant County Public Utility District; Public Utility Districtof Clallam County; City of Richland; Public Utility Districtof Franklin County; Public Utility Districtof Snohomish County; Columbia Defendants, Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Wood Dawson Smith & Hellman; Washington Public Power Supply System; R.W. Beck and Associates, Ebasco Services Incorporated; United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.; Director Defendants, Participants' Committee Defendants; Public Utility District, of Klickitat County; United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration; State of Washington; Blyth Eastman Paine Webber Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees, Bernard A. Heerey, et al., Applicants in intervention Appellants. CLASS PLAINTIFFS; Chemical Bank, in its representative capacity as Trustee for Bondholders, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF SEATTLE; Public Utility Districtof Ferry County, Washington; Public Utility Districtof Kittitas County, Washington; Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington; Small Utilities Group, Alder Mutual Light Company; City of Blaine, Washington, City of Sumas, Washington; Orcas Power & Light Company, Washington; Public Utility Districtof Pend Oreille County, Washington; Washin |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Albert R. Malanca, Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, Tacoma, Wash., Daniel Murdock, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, Ralph K. Nickerson, Goldendale, Wash., Rockne Gill, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, R. Erick Johnson, Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, Peter R. Mersereau, Rankin, VavRosky, Doherty, MacColl & Mersereau, Portland, Or., Dwight A. Halstead, Prosser, Wash., Steven J. Palmer, Flynn, Merriman & Palmer, Kennewick, Wash., Malcolm S. Harris, Harris, Orr & Wakayama, Seattle, Wash., J. Christopher Kohn, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C., David A. Bennett, Bennett & Bigelow, Seattle, Wash., Ralph G. Wellington, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Peter J. Nickels, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., Otto G. Klein, Heller, Ehram, White & McAuliffe, Roy J. Moceri, Reed, McClure, Moceri, Thonn & Moriarty, Seattle, Wash., James J. Hagan, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, Jerry B. Edmond, William, Kastner & Gibbs, Seattle, Wash., David F. Jurca, Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson, Seattle, Wash., Everett B. Clary, O'Melveny & Myers, G. Edward Fitzgerald, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., John D. Lowery, Riddell, Williams, Bullitt & Walkinshaw, Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellees.
Edward A. Grossmann, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, New York City; Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss Bershad Specthrie & Lerach, New York City; Michael J. Meehan, Molloy, Jones & Donahue, Tucson, Ariz., Robert H. Baron and Richard W. Clary, Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Robert M. Sedgwick, Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, New York City, C. Richard Lehmann, Miami Lakes, Fla., for applicants in intervention appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, BRUNETTI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
These consolidated appeals involve challenges to the district court's approval of settlement agreements and a plan of allocation in securities litigation. The case arose out of the nation's largest bond default, the 1983 default on $2.25 billion in revenue bonds issued in order to finance the construction of two nuclear power plants in the State of Washington that were never completed. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's approval of the settlement agreements and Allocation Plan in all respects.
The facts are set forth by the district court in In re Washington Public Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 720 F.Supp. 1379 (D.Ariz.1989). We summarize.
In 1976, the Washington Public Power Supply System ("WPPSS") 1 entered into agreements ("Participants' Agreements") with eighty-eight public utilities in the Pacific Northwest under which each participating utility ("Participant") purchased a percentage of the project capability of two nuclear power plants being built by WPPSS. The two plants, Project 4 and Project 5 ("Projects 4/5"), were among five nuclear power plants which WPPSS had undertaken to construct in the 1970s. Under the Participants' Agreements, each Participant agreed to pay its percentage share of costs incurred by WPPSS to finance, construct, and operate Projects 4/5, whether or not the Projects were completed, operable, or operating. During the On January 22, 1982, construction of Projects 4/5 was terminated. At that time, Project 4 was approximately 24 percent completed and Project 5 approximately 16 percent completed. Costs had almost reached the original estimated total cost for complete construction of both plants. WPPSS alleged that termination was necessary due to its inability to obtain adequate financing.
next five years, WPPSS issued $2.25 billion in bonds to finance Projects 4/5.
The Participants would have been obligated to commence payments to WPPSS one year later. Before the payments became due, however, several actions were filed by ratepayers, certain Participant utilities, and Chemical Bank in its capacity as Trustee for all Projects 4/5 Bondholders. These actions sought to contest or enforce the Participants' obligations to make payments to WPPSS under the terms of the Participants' Agreements. On June 15, 1983, the Washington Supreme Court held that certain of the Participant municipal utilities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandpiper Village v. Louisiana-Pacific., 03-35058.
...214 F.3d at 870-71. 30. The cases cited by L-P are easily distinguishable. In the only binding precedent cited, Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1992), we upheld an anti-suit provision in a class action settlement agreement against attack by a group of settlement ......
-
Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB , 414 U.S. 168, 179, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973) ; see also Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle , 955 F.2d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1992) ("[A] judgment can bind persons not parties to the litigation in question and not subject in personam to the jurisd......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, In re
...claims have the power to release those claims as part of a judgment." Grimes, 17 F.3d at 1563; see also Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1287-88 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 953, 113 S.Ct. 408, 121 L.Ed.2d 333 (1992) (noting that the weight of authority holds that a......
-
Molski v. Gleich
...the consent decree was fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e); see also Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir.1992). We review a district court's decision to approve a class action settlement for a clear abuse of discretion. Dun......
-
The Enforcement Of Nationwide Class Settlements To Bar Related Class Actions: An Example Of Finality And Preclusion
.... , this Court cannot now modify the terms of that bargain at the insistence of one class member"); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 1992) ("weight of authority holds that a federal court may release not only those claims alleged in the complaint, but al......
-
Settling competition concerns
...claims not pleaded in complaint but that arose “out of the same conduct alleged in the case”); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1287 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The weight of authority holds that a federal court may release not only those claims alleged in the complaint, but also a......
-
Table of cases
...Corp., 407 N.E.2d 507 (Ohio 1980) .............................................................. 22 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) .......................................................... 139 Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 (1927) .....................
-
Transnational class actions and interjurisdictional preclusion.
...than those that have been specifically pleaded. In fact, most settling defendants insist on this."); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1287 (9th Cir. 1992) ("[A] federal court may release not only those claims alleged in the complaint, but also a claim 'based on the identi......