AMC Entertainment : Plaintiffs Settlement Reply Brief

EFiled: Jun 08 2023 10:25AM EDT

Transaction ID 70161266

Case No. 2023-0215-MTZ

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT	)
)	CONSOLIDATED
HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER
)	C.A. No. 2023-0215-MTZ
LITIGATION
)

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT

OF SETTLEMENT, AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'

FEES AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER	BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP	& GROSSMANN LLP
Mark Lebovitch	Gregory V. Varallo (#2242)
Edward Timlin	Daniel E. Meyer (#6876)
1251 Avenue of the Americas	500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
New York, NY 10020	Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]	[phone]

FIELDS KUPKA &	GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
SHUKUROV LLP	Michael J. Barry (#4368)
William J. Fields	Kelly L. Tucker (#6382)
Christopher J. Kupka	Jason M. Avellino (#5821)
Samir Shukurov	123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161	Wilmington, DE 19801
New York, NY 10018	[phone]
[phone]	SAXENA WHITE P.A.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Thomas Curry (#5877)
David Wales	824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor	Wilmington, DE 19801
White Plains, NY 10606	[phone]
[phone]	Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs
- and -
Adam Warden
7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
[phone]

Dated: June 8, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
Introduction	1
Methodology	7
Argument	10
I. No Objector Shows that the Settlement Is Unreasonable or Inadequate	10

1. The Settlement "Give" and "Get" Fall Within the Range of

Reasonableness	11
1.	The "Give"	11

1. Objectors ignore substantial risks of continued

prosecution of the Blasius claim

11

1. Objectors ignore substantial risks associated with

		prosecution of the §242(b) claim	16
	c.	Objectors misconstrue and overvalue the "give"	22
2.	"The Get"	24
	a.	Objectors undervalue the "get" of the Settlement	24

1. Proposed amendments to 8 Del. C. § 242(d) further

enhance the value of the "get"

27

1. Objectors' "Suggestions for a revised Settlement Proposal" are outside the Court's purview and underscore

the utility of representative litigation

29

1. No Objector Has Identified Any Additional Claim(s) That Could

Have Created More Value for the Class	32
1.	Common Law Fraud	32
2.	Reverse Stock Split Claims	33
	- i -

3.	Challenges to the March 14 Vote	33
4.	Theories about Manipulation in the Stock Market	34

1. The "Views of The Parties Involved, Pro and Con" Do Not Support

Denial of the Settlement

36

1. The Scope of the Release Is Appropriate Given the Value of the

Settlement

38

1. No Objector Advances a Valid Argument against Class Certification on a

Non-Opt-Out, Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) Basis	42
A.	Franchi and Allegheny Are Adequate	42
B.	Izzo Is Cannot Lead the Class	45

1. Moving to Lift the Status Quo Order Does Not Impugn Plaintiffs'

	Counsel's Adequacy	46
D.	The Class Is Properly Certified with No Opt-Out Right	48
E.	Notice Here Comports with Due Process	52

1. Objections to the Fee, Expense, and Incentive Award Are Conclusory and

Fail to Rebut the Strong Support in the Award's favor	54
A.	The Fee Request Is Reasonable	54

1. None of the Scattershot Objections to the Proposed Award Have

	Merit	55
C.	Lead Plaintiffs Deserve Incentive Awards	60
Conclusion	...............................................................................................................	61

- ii -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
	Page(s)
CASES
In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. S'holder Litig.,
124 A.3d 1025 (Del. Ch. 2015)	passim
Allegheny Cty. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer, L.P.,
No. 20-200 (E.D. Pa)	45, 46
Am. Hardware Corp. v. Savage Arms Corp.,
136 A.2d 690 (Del. 1957)	53
Ams. Mining Corp. v. Theriault,
51 A.3d 1213 (Del. 2012)	54, 59
In re ArthroCare S'holder Litig.,
C.A. No. 9313-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 6, 2014)	58
Baker v. Sadiq,
2016 WL 4375250 (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2016)	58
Basic, Inc. v. Levinson,
485 U.S. 224 (1988)	33
C&J Energy Servs. v. City of Miami Gen. Emps.' & Sanitation Emps.'
Ret. Tr.,
107 A.3d 1049 (Del. 2014)	6, 29, 32
In re Celera Corp. S'holder Litig.,
59 A.3d 418 (Del. 2012)	49, 50
In re China Integrated Energy, Inc. S'holders Litig.,
C.A. No. 6625-VCL (Del. Ch. Dec. 2, 2015)	58
Christiana Care Health Servs. v. Davis,
127 A.3d 391 (Del. 2015)	40
City of Monroe Emps' Ret. Sys. v. Murdoch,
C.A. No. 2017-0833-AGB (Del. Ch. Feb. 9, 2018)	58

- iii -

DeMarco v. Christiana Care Health Servs.,
263 A.3d 423 (Del. Ch. 2021)	32
Forsythe v. ESC Fund Mgmt. Co. (U.S.),
2013 WL 458373 (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2013)	29
Garfield v. Boxed, Inc.,
2022 WL 17959766 (Del. Ch. Dec. 27, 2022)	17
Griffith v. Stein,
283 A.3d 1124 (Del. 2022)	40
In re Josephson Int'l, Inc.,
1988 WL 112909 (Del. Ch. Oct. 19, 1988)	58
Kahn v. Sullivan,
594 A.2d 48 (Del. 1991)	11
La. Mun. Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Crawford,
C.A. No. 2635-CC (Del. Ch.)	47
La. Mun. Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Fertitta,
C.A. No. 4339-VCL (Del. Ch.)	47
Macomb Cty. Empl's. Ret. Sys. v. McBride,
C.A. No. 2019-0658-LLW (Del. Ch. Oct. 11, 2021)	4, 24, 56, 58
In re Multiplan Corp. S'holders Litig.,
No. 2021-0300-LWW (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2023)	passim
New Enterprise Assoc. 14, L.P. v. Rich,
2023 WL 3195927 (Del. Ch. May 2, 2023)	40
Nottingham Partners v. Dana,
564 A.2d 1089 (Del. 1989)	49
Orban v. Field,
1993 WL 547187 (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 1993)	18, 19, 20
In re Pivotal Software, Inc. S'holders Litig.,
C.A. No. 2020-0440-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 4, 2022)	24, 27, 38

- iv -