Snitzer v. The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and…

What the order did

The court entered a short administrative order concerning objections to a proposed class-action settlement. It stated that a fairness hearing was scheduled for August 26, 2020, that putative class members had to file objections by July 27, 2020, and that the objections received to date were attached to the order. The court ordered that those attached objections be filed on the electronic docket to maintain an accurate public record.

Issues raised by objectors

The attached documents contain objections from class members and an objector. They ask the court to reject or modify the proposed settlement because, according to the objectors:

- The settlement does not meaningfully restrict the trustees’ or plan advisers’ investment decisions, including allegedly risky or illiquid investment practices. - The independent neutral fiduciary’s proposed role is too limited in duration and authority, including because the fiduciary allegedly lacks power to require more prudent investments or report breaches of fiduciary duty directly to the court. - The trustees should be removed or restricted, particularly Raymond Hair and Christopher Brockmeyer, according to some objectors. - The settlement does not sufficiently restrict communications that objectors say disparaged class members or class representatives, or portrayed the settlement favorably to the trustees. - The settlement’s release provisions allegedly prevent class members from pursuing additional claims, and some objectors requested an opt-out option or other exceptions. - The settlement allegedly provides inadequate substantive relief in light of the plan’s history of alleged mismanagement. - Some objectors challenged the requested attorneys’ fees, including the amount of the award and the manner in which fee negotiations were conducted. - Some objectors sought broader disclosure of sealed discovery and other case materials before final approval.

These assertions appear in the attached objections and are positions taken by the objectors. The July 3 order did not decide whether those assertions were true or whether the settlement should be approved.

Disposition and effect

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered only that the attached objections be filed on the electronic case docket. The order did not grant or deny final approval of the settlement, rule on any objection, award attorneys’ fees, or decide the underlying claims. The opinion text therefore does not state the eventual outcome of the fairness hearing or the settlement-approval process.