Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2021

In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:19-cv-04512
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Class ActionPreliminary InjunctionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation: Judge Nathan ordered filings addressing a confidential agreement and proposed injunction before considering settlement approval.

Who this affects

The lead plaintiffs, Plaintiff Irving Braun, proposed settlement-class members, Dynagas LNG Partners LP, and the other parties covered by the proposed settlement and proposed injunction.

What happened

In In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs asked the court to preliminarily approve a proposed settlement and preliminarily certify them as a class. They submitted the settlement agreement, proposed orders, and proposed notices.

The court identified two issues. The settlement agreement referred to a confidential supplemental agreement about when Dynagas could end the settlement, and the proposed order would temporarily prevent class members from pursuing released claims without explaining the legal basis for that restriction.

Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the parties to file the supplemental agreement privately with the court, or explain in writing why they should not have to do so, by June 9, 2021. If they kept the proposed injunction, they also had to file a brief supporting the court’s authority to issue it. The opinion did not finally approve the settlement or certify the class.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation · No. 1:19-cv-04512
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
June 2, 2021

Background

Lead Plaintiffs FNY Partners Fund LP, Mario Epelbaum, and Scott Dunlop, together with Plaintiff Irving Braun, filed a motion seeking, among other things, preliminary approval of a proposed settlement and preliminary certification of the plaintiffs as a class. Their submissions included a settlement stipulation, a proposed order concerning preliminary settlement approval and class notice, a proposed notice to class members, and a proposed summary notice.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court said it was inclined to issue the proposed order but wanted to hear from the parties about two concerns. First, the stipulation referred to a confidential supplemental agreement between the lead plaintiff and Dynagas addressing the circumstances in which Dynagas could terminate the settlement. The court noted that courts generally approved settlements referring to such agreements only after the parties filed the agreements with the court under seal, meaning in a restricted court filing.

Second, paragraph 21 of the proposed order would temporarily enjoin the lead plaintiffs and other members of the settlement class from starting or pursuing released claims against released defendants while the court considered final settlement approval. The proposed paragraph did not explain why the restriction should be imposed or provide legal authority for the injunction.

Order

Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the parties to file the confidential supplemental agreement under seal by June 9, 2021, or show cause in writing by that date why it should not be filed with the court. The court also ordered that, if the parties wished to keep paragraph 21, they had to submit a supplemental brief by June 9 explaining why the court could and should issue the proposed injunction. The order did not finally approve the settlement or finally certify the plaintiffs as a class.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.