Monticello Telecommunications Revenue Bonds
Warning: Illegal string offset 'class' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 61
Warning: Illegal string offset 'alt' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 62
Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 63
Monticello Telecommunications Revenue Bonds, Securities Settlement
The lawsuit was settled for $5.75 million in cash. The following is a summary of the proceedings in this lawsuit: ‘There is now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a class action lawsuit entitled Dean v. City of Monticello, Civ. No. 14-cv-00376 DFW/JSM (the Class Action Lawsuit). This Notice explains the nature of the Class Action Lawsuit and the general terms of a proposed settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit. This Notice also informs you of your legal rights and obligations. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all capitalized terms used in this Notice have the same meaning as used in the Settlement Agreement, which is appended here. The Settlement resolves Bond Holder Claims arising from the City of Monticello’s issuance of and nonpayment on the Monticello Telecommunications Revenue Bonds, Series 2008 (the Bonds). The Plaintiff in the Class Action Lawsuit, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, seeks redress for claims arising under federal and Minnesota state securities fraud claims, common law misrepresentation and other claims. The Plaintiff also seeks redress for claims arising under the Indenture to the Bonds. The City denies liability to the Plaintiff and other current a former holders of the Bonds and believes it has defenses that would defeat the Plaintiff alleged claims. Nevertheless, given the expense, length and uncertainty of litigation, the parties have agreed to enter into a Settlement as a compromise of the disputed claims and defenses, to promote the public welfare and to avoid drawn-out, intrusive litigation. The Court appointed Plaintiff counsel Geoffrey H. Coll and Rick L. Frimmer of Schiff Hardin LLP and David B. Potter and Archana Nath of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP to serve as Class Counsel in this proceeding. Class counsel have investigated and evaluated the claims of Bond Holders against the City related to the Bonds, and have determined that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. All parties recognize and acknowledge the uncertainty, risk, difficulties, delays and expenses associated with litigation, and that it is desirable to provide benefits to the Class members promptly rather than initiate protracted, expensive litigation. For purposes of Settlement only, the parties have stipulated that this Class Action Lawsuit shall proceed as a class action, and Judge Donovan W. Frank of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (also referred to as the Court) has conditionally certified the Class pursuant to this stipulation. The Court has already reviewed the proposed Settlement and has granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. The Court has made no rulings as to the merits of the allegations in the Class Action Lawsuit or the City denials and defenses. Distribution of this Notice is not a Court ruling or opinion as to the likelihood of recovery by the Class members or as to the merits of the City defenses.’