Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Thinkequity Llc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Securities/Commodities | New York Southern
Order on Motion to Approve Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion to Expedite Order on Motion for Settlement
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL terminating 55 Motion to Approve ; terminating 59 Motion to Amend/Correct ; terminating 73 Letter Motion to Expedite; granting 74 Motion for Settlement. On June 2, 2026, Defendant ThinkEquity filed an objection to the proposed settlement. See ECF No. 85. ThinkEquity states therein that it does not oppose th[e] portion of the settlement that is between class plaintiffs and all of the defendants with the exception ofThinkEquity. Id. at 1. However, ThinkEquity does oppose that portion of the proposed settlement (incorporated into the last paragraph of the proposed order approving the settlement) that seeks to preserve claims against ThinkEquity to continue in this action." Id. Without citation of any authority, ThinkEquity essentially argues that, "[w]hile ordinarily plaintiffsshould be entitled to proceed with claims that are excluded from a partial settlement, here the Original Settlement Agreement recognized implicitly that there were no valid claims againstThinkEquity. Id. at 3. The Original Settlement Agreement referenced by DefendantThinkEquity was pending before the Court when the bankruptcy [of Kiromic] intervened andwas not approved. Id. at 2.ThinkEquity lacks standing to object because it has not demonstrated, and cannotdemonstrate, "some formal legal prejudice as a result of the settlement." Melito v. Am. EagleOutfitters, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 2440 (VEC), 2017 WL 3995619, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2017). "The requisite level of formal legal prejudice necessary for a non-settling defendant to have standing to object exists only in those rare circumstances when, for example, the settlement agreement formally strips a non-settling party of a legal claim or a cause of action, such as a cross-claim for contribution or indemnification, invalidates a non-settling party's contract rights, or the right to present relevant evidence at a trial. Id. (quoting Bhatia v. Piedrahita, 756 F.3d 211, 218 (2d Cir. 2014). In general, a settlement which does not prevent the later assertion of a non-settling party's claims (although it may spawn additional litigation to vindicate such claims) does not cause the non-settling party formal legal prejudice. Id. (quoting Bhatia, 756 F.3d at 219). The proposed settlement does not strip ThinkEquity of any legal claims, or in any other way constitute formal legal prejudice to ThinkEquity. Id. Accordingly, ThinkEquity's objection is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 55, 59, 73, and 74. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden on 8/25/2026) (jca)
Status Report
STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Ari Karp, Ethan Karp, Ronald H. Karp. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Voluntary Dismissal of Kiromic).(McKenna, Thomas)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.