Robert Collier, et al. v. BrightPoint, Inc., et al. 12-CV ......Oct 18, 2012 · Robert Collier, et...
Transcript of Robert Collier, et al. v. BrightPoint, Inc., et al. 12-CV ......Oct 18, 2012 · Robert Collier, et...
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 807
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 808
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROBERT COLLIER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Civil Action No.: 1:1 2-cv- 1016 (TWP)(DKL) Plaintiff,
VS.
BRIGHTPOINT, INC., JERRE L. STEAD, ELIZA HERMANN, ROBERT J. LAIKIN, JOHN F. LEVY, CYNTHIA L. LUCCHESE, RICHARD W. ROEDEL, MICHAEL L. SMITH, and KARI-PEKKA WILSKA,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF BRIGHTPO1NT, INC. ("BRIGHTPOINT" OR THE "COMPANY") AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON AND INCLUDING MARCH 16, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER OF BRIGHTPOINT AND INGRAM MICRO INC., INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, PREDECESSORS, REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, HEIRS, ASSIGNS, OR TRANSFEREES, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ACTING FOR OR ON BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER, ANY OF THEM, AND EACH OF THEM.
PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS (AS DEFINED HEREIN).
IF YOU HELD OR TENDERED THE COMMON STOCK OF BRIGHTPOINT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 809
I. PURPOSE OF NOTICE
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above-
captioned lawsuit (the "Action"), including any action consolidated therein, pending before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the "Court"), as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release, dated October 15, 2012
(the "Stipulation" or "Settlement"). This Notice also informs you of the Court's certification of
the Class (as defined below) for purposes of the Settlement and notifies you of your right to
participate in a hearing to be held 90 days from the entry of the Scheduling and Preliminary
Approval Order, before the Court in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (the "Settlement Hearing"), to
determine whether the Court should approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the Class, to determine whether plaintiffs Robert J. Collier, Armand Rijken,
and Mark Rifken, as representatives of the Class (the "Lead Plaintiffs"),' and their counsel at the
law firms of Faruqi & Faruqi, LP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, who have been
preliminarily certified as co-lead counsel to the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class in the Action
("Lead Counsel"), have adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action, and to
consider other matters, including a request by Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.
The Court has determined that, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Action shall be
preliminarily maintained as a non-opt-out class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), by the Lead Plaintiffs as Class representatives, on behalf of a class
1 Plaintiff Robert J. Collier initiated the class action lawsuit captioned, Collier v. Brightpoint, Inc., et al, 12-cv- 10 16-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind.) (the "Collier Action"). Plaintiffs Armand Rijken and Mark Rifken initiated the class action lawsuit captioned, RUken, et al. v. Brightpoint, Inc., et al., 12-cv-1072-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind.) (the "Rj ken Action"). On September 17, 2012, the Rken Action was consolidated into the Collier Action.
2
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 810
consisting of all record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of BrightPoint, Inc.
("BrightPoint") at any time during the period beginning on and including March 16, 2012
through and including the date of the consummation of the Merger (as defined below) (the
"Class Period"), and excluding the defendants in the Action, any entity in which a defendant in
the Action has or had a controlling interest, officers of the defendants in the Action and the legal
representatives, agents, executors, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person (the
"Class"). At the Settlement Hearing, among other things, the Court will consider whether the
Class should be certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and whether the Lead
Plaintiffs have adequately represented the Class.
This Notice describes the rights that you may have under the Settlement and what steps
you may, but are not required to, take in relation to the Settlement. If the Court approves the
Settlement, the parties to the Action will ask the Court at the Settlement Hearing to enter an
Order and Final Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice on the merits.
THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION
This Action arises out of the proposed acquisition by Ingram Micro, Inc. ("Ingram
Micro") of BrightPoint at a price of $9.00 per share of BrightPoint stock, which was announced
on June 29, 2012, the date on which BrightPoint, Ingram Micro, and Beacon Sub, Inc. ("Beacon
Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingram Micro, executed the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Beacon Sub with
and into BrightPoint (the "Merger"), with BrightPoint surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 811
subsidiary of Ingram Micro. Beacon Sub is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingram Micro and was
formed solely for the purpose of facilitating Ingram Micro's acquisition of BrightPoint.
On July 2, 2012, Ingram Micro and BrightPoint jointly issued a press release announcing
that they had entered into the definitive Merger Agreement pursuant to which Ingram Micro,
though its wholly owned subsidiary Beacon Sub, would acquire BrightPoint.
On July 19, 2012, BrightPoint filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") a preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement")
disclosing the BrightPoint board of directors' unanimous recommendation that BrightPoint
shareholders vote for the approval of the Merger Agreement.
On July 24, 2012, Mr. Robert Collier filed an action (the "Collier Action") against
BrightPoint, Jerre L. Stead, Eliza Hermann, Robert J. Laikin, John F. Levy, Cynthia L. Lucchese,
Richard W. Roedel, Michael L. Smith, Kari-Pekka Wilska, Ingram Micro and Beacon Sub (the
"Collier Defendants").
On July 27, 2012, plaintiff in the Collier Action filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery
and to Set a Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On August 2, 2012, Mr. Armand Rijken and Mr. Mark Ritken filed an action (the "RU ken
Action") against BrightPoint, Robert J. Laikin, Thomas J. Ridge, Jerre L. Stead, Kari-Pekka
Wilska, Eliza Hermann, Cynthia L. Lucchese, John F. Levy, Richard W. Roedel and Michael L.
Smith (the "RUken Defendants" and, together with the Collier Defendants, "Defendants")
On August 9, 2012, plaintiff in the Collier Action filed a Motion to Consolidate the
Rjken Action with the Collier Action. On August 10, 2012, plaintiff in the Rjken Action filed a
Notice of Joinder in Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate and Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited
ru
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 812
Discovery and to Set a Schedule for Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the Collier
Action.
On August 10, 2012, BrightPoint filed a Motion to Dismiss the Collier Action. On
August 17, 2012, BrightPoint filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion
for Expedited Discovery and to Set a Schedule for Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.
On August 20, 2012, BrightPoint filed a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A with
the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"). In the
Definitive Proxy Statement, Defendants made certain disclosures that the Action had identified
and alleged as having been omitted from the Preliminary Proxy Statement. Defendants deny that
they made any material misstatements or omissions in the Preliminary Proxy Statement or in the
Definitive Proxy Statement.
On or before August 21, 2012, counsel for Defendants and Lead Counsel commenced
discussions concerning the disclosures made in or to be made in the Preliminary and Definitive
Proxy Statements. Beginning on August 21, 2012, Defendants made certain documents available
for review by Lead Plaintiffs.
On August 22, 2012, plaintiff in the Collier Action filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Action, as consolidated and amended, alleges, among other things, that Defendants failed to
disclose material information to shareholders in the Preliminary and Definitive Proxy
Statements, and Defendants breached their, and/or aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary
duties.
5
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 813
On August 24, 2012, plaintiff in the Collier Action filed a Reply Memorandum in
Support of the Motion for Expedited Discovery and to Set Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
On August 24, 2012, Lead Counsel sent to counsel for Defendants a communication that
demanded Defendants make certain additional disclosures to BrightPoint shareholders prior to
the scheduled shareholder vote on the Merger and any shareholder vote thereon.
On August 24, 2012, plaintiff in the Collier Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction seeking to enjoin the Merger.
Counsel to the parties had a series of good faith and arm's length discussions about the
proposed Merger, the disclosures that appear in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and Definitive
Proxy Statement, and a possible settlement of the Action.
After consultation and arm's length negotiations with Lead Counsel, as contemplated
herein, BrightPoint agreed to make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger (the
"Supplemental Disclosures") through a current report on Form 8-K (the "8-K") to be filed with
the SEC, and agreed that the Action was a substantial cause of Defendants' decision to make
certain supplemental disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Disclosures")
(collectively, with the Supplemental Disclosures, the "Disclosures").
As a result of the pendency and prosecution of the Action, counsel also continued in
arm's length negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the Action. Counsel reached an
agreement in principle, set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding, dated September 4, 2012,
providing for the settlement of the Action between and among Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and the Class of persons on behalf of whom Lead Plaintiffs brought the Action, and
Defendants, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth below.
ON
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 814
On September 6, 2012, BrightPoint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a
Form 8-K making the Supplemental Disclosures to the Definitive Proxy. These Supplemental
Disclosures included: (1) the multiples for each selected company in the Selected Companies
Analysis done by Blackstone Advisory Partners, L.P. ("Blackstone"), a financial advisor retained
by BrightPoint to evaluate the fairness of the consideration to be paid by Ingram Micro to the
holders of BrightPoint's common stock, which analysis was described in detail on pages 39-41
of the Definitive Proxy Statement; (2) replacement of the first paragraph on page 41 of the
Definitive Proxy Statement describing in detail the Illustrative Stand-Alone Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis by Blackstone; and (3) replacement of the first chart on page 42 of the Definitive
Proxy Statement in the section describing the Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis
performed by Blackstone, which replacement chart includes a column entitled "Transaction
Value/LTM Revenue."
On the same day, September 6, 2012, BrightPoint filed a Consent to Plaintiffs' Motion to
Consolidate the Collier and R jjken lawsuits into Collier v. BrightPoint, Inc., 1 2-cv-0 101 6-TWP-
DKL (S.D. Ind.).
On September 12, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Withdrawal of Pending Motions
in the Action, which the Court approved on September 17, 2012.
On September 17, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Consolidate the Collier and R jjken lawsuits into the Collier Action.
On September 19, 2012, the duly noticed special meeting of the shareholders of
BrightPoint was held and 50,447,066 shares were represented in person or by proxy.
The matters submitted to the shareholders and voted upon at this special shareholders meeting,
which are more fully described in BrightPoint's Definitive Proxy Statement, included approval
7
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 815
of the Merger Agreement. The Merger Agreement was approved by the indicated votes: (1)
For: 50,302,206; (2) Against: 122,345; and (3) Abstain: 22,515.
III. THE SETTLEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENT
In consideration for the Settlement (including any claim for attorneys' fees in connection
with the Action) and the release of all Released Claims (see Section IV below), Defendants have
taken the following actions
• BrightPoint disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement the forecasts of future unlevered free cash flows for the second half of fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017 provided by management of BrightPoint to Blackstone. These forecasts were not included in the Preliminary Proxy Statement.
• BrightPoint made certain documents and draft disclosures available for review by Lead Counsel.
After consulting with Lead Counsel and discussing the language and substance of the Supplemental Disclosures, BrightPoint made the Supplemental Disclosures in the Form 8K filed with the SEC on or about September 6, 2012, which provided additional information relating to certain data, inputs, methodologies, and analyses underlying the financial valuation work done by Blackstone, BrightPoint's financial advisor. These Supplemental Disclosures included:
• The multiples for each company in the Selected Companies Analysis done by Blackstone to evaluate the fairness of the consideration to be paid by Ingram Micro to the holders of BrightPoint' s common stock, which analysis was described in detail on pages 39-41 of the Definitive Proxy Statement;
• Replacement of the first paragraph on page 41 of the Definitive Proxy Statement describing in detail the Illustrative Stand-Alone Discounted Cash Flow Analysis by Blackstone; and
• Replacement of the first chart on page 42 of the Definitive Proxy Statement in the section describing the Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis performed by Blackstone, which replacement chart includes a column entitled "Transaction Value/LTM Revenue."
• BrightPoint has permitted, and will continue to permit, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel the opportunity to conduct discovery to confirm their decision to settle the Action based on the benefits and conditions stated herein.
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 816
Defendants have agreed that all costs of providing this Notice to holders of common
stock of BrightPoint will be paid by BrightPoint, and in no event shall Lead Plaintiffs, Lead
Counsel, or any member of the Class be responsible for any notice costs or expenses.
If you are a Class member, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action
whether or not you actually receive this Notice. You may not opt out of the Class.
IV. RELEASES
The Stipulation and Settlement provides that, subject to Court approval of the Settlement,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for good and valuable consideration, the
Action shall be dismissed on the merits with prejudice as to all Defendants and against all
members of the Class. In addition, any and all rights, actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues,
sums of money, accounts, liabilities, losses, obligations, fees, costs, reckonings, bonds, bills,
specialties, controversies, agreements, contracts, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments,
extensions, executions, claims and demands whatsoever, whether known or unknown, contingent
or absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, matured or unmatured, that have
been, could have been or in the future could be or might be asserted, by or on behalf of plaintiffs
and any or all members of the Class in their capacity as shareholders and all of their respective
present or past heirs, executors, estates, administrators, predecessors, successors, assigns,
parents, subsidiaries, associates, affiliates, employers, employees, agents, consultants, directors,
managing directors, officers, partners, partnerships, principals, limited liability companies,
members, attorneys, bankers, consultants, trustees, insurers, coinsurers, reinsurers, accountants,
financial and other advisors, investment bankers, underwriters, lenders, auditors and any other
representatives of any of these persons or entities, including, without limitation, any claims,
whether individual, class, direct, derivative, representative, legal, equitable or in any other
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 817
capacity, arising under federal statutory or common law, state statutory or common law, local
statutory or common law or any law, rule or regulation, including the law of any jurisdiction
outside the United States (including, but not limited to, allegations of fraud, fraud in the
inducement, breach of the duty of care, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of the duty of
disclosure, breach of any other duty, misrepresentation, or omission, negligence or gross
negligence, "quasi-appraisal," breach of contract, breach of trust, corporate waste, ultra vires
actions, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, violations of federal or state securities law or
otherwise), that relate in any way to (i) the Merger Agreement or any amendment thereto or the
Merger itself; (ii) the fiduciary duties owed by Defendants and the Released Parties to
shareholders of BrightPoint in connection therewith; (iii) Defendants' disclosure obligations
under federal, state or any other law in connection with the Merger Agreement or the Merger;
(iv) the adequacy of the consideration to be paid to BrightPoint shareholders in connection with
the Merger Agreement and/or Merger; (v) the negotiations in connection with the Merger
Agreement, or any amendment thereto, including any alleged deal protection devices; (vi) the
alleged aiding and abetting of any breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Merger
Agreement or the Merger; (vii) any alleged improper personal benefit, conflict of interest,
improper payments of any remuneration or employment benefits to any individual made in
connection with the Merger Agreement or the Merger; (viii) the allegations in the Action; and
(ix) any other claim related in any way to any of the foregoing (collectively, the "Released
Claims"), shall be individually and collectively, completely, fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged; provided, however, that the Released Claims shall not be construed
to limit the right of the Defendants, Lead Plaintiffs, or any member of the Class to enforce the
terms of the Stipulation.
FEE
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 818
The Stipulation also provides that Defendants and their respective counsel, individually
and collectively, shall completely, fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, settle, and
discharge Lead Plaintiffs, Lead Counsel, and all Class members from any and all claims arising
out of or relating to their filing, prosecuting, or settling the Action; provided, however, that the
release shall not include the right of the Defendants to enforce the terms of the Settlement.
If the Settlement becomes final, the releases will extend to claims that the parties granting
the releases (the "Releasing Persons") may not know or suspect to exist at the time of the release,
which, if known, might have affected their decision to enter into this release or whether or how
to object to the Court's approval of the Settlement. The Releasing Persons, including each
member of the Class, shall be deemed to waive any and all provisions, rights, and benefits
conferred by any law of the United States or any state or territory of the United States, or
principle of common law or foreign law, which may have the effect of limiting the release set
forth above. In particular, the Releasing Persons, including each member of the Class, shall be
deemed to have relinquished to the full extent permitted by law the provisions, rights, and
benefits of section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
In addition, the Releasing Persons, including each member of the Class, shall be deemed to
relinquish, to the extent they are applicable, and to the full extent permitted by law, the
provisions, rights, and benefits of any law of any state or territory of the United States, federal
law, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to section 1542 of
the California Civil Code. The parties do not and shall not concede that any law, other than the
11
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 819
law of the state of Indiana, is applicable to the Stipulation or the release of the Released Claims.
The Releasing Persons, including each member of the Class, acknowledge that the Releasing
Persons may discover facts in addition to or different from those now known or believed to be
true with respect to the Released Claims, but that it is the intention of the Releasing Persons,
including each member of the Class, to hereby completely, fully, finally, and forever
compromise, settle, release, discharge, and extinguish any and all Released Claims, known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which now exist, or heretofore existed, or may hereafter
exist, and without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of additional or different facts.
V. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
Lead Counsel have reviewed and analyzed the facts and circumstances relating to the
claims asserted in the Action, as known by Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel to date, including
conducting discussions with counsel to BrightPoint; analyzing draft disclosures provided by
BrightPoint, documents obtained through publicly available sources, applicable case law, and
other authorities; conducting interviews and depositions; and communicating with their financial
and tax consultants. Based on this investigation, Lead Plaintiffs decided to enter into the
Stipulation, and settle the Action based upon the terms and conditions set forth therein, after
taking into account, among other things, (1) the benefits to the Class from the litigation of the
Action and the Settlement; (2) the risks of continued litigation in this Action; (3) the conclusion
reached by the parties and their counsel that the Settlement upon the terms and provisions set
forth in the Settlement are fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class and
has resulted in a benefit to them. Lead Counsel believes that the Supplemental Disclosures
provided to BrightPoint's shareholders set forth substantial additional information that had
previously been undisclosed, and thereby allowed for a more informed vote on the Merger.
12
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 820
Defendants have denied and continue to deny that they committed any violations of law
or breaches of fiduciary duty to the Class whatsoever, nor aided and abetted any violations of
law or breaches of fiduciary duty, including in connection with the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, the Preliminary Proxy Statement, the Definitive Proxy Statement, and the Special
Shareholders Meeting, but state that they consider it desirable that this Action be settled and
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice to (1) eliminate the risk, burden and expense of
further litigation, (2) permit the merger to be consummated as scheduled without risk of delay,
and (3) permit BrightPoint's shareholders to receive the consideration provided for in the Merger
Agreement.
VI. APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of six hundred
thousand dollars ($600,000.00) for attorneys' fees and expenses (including costs, disbursements,
and expert and consultant fees) in connection with the litigations described in this Notice to be
paid by BrightPoint on top of (i.e., not out of) the Merger consideration received by BrightPoint
(the "Fee Petition"). Therefore, no attorneys' fees or expenses will be borne by Class members.
Defendants have agreed not to oppose the Fee Petition and acknowledge that Lead Counsel have
a claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action based upon the benefits that the litigation
of the Action and the Settlement have provided to the Class. BrightPoint, on behalf of and for
the benefit of itself and the other Defendants, agrees to pay any final award of fees and expenses
by the Court, not to exceed the amounts specified in the first sentence of this paragraph.
VII. CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION
The Court has ordered that, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Action shall be
preliminarily maintained as a class action by the named Lead Plaintiffs as Class representatives,
13
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 821
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), with the Class
defined as set forth above.
Inquiries or comments about the Settlement may be directed to the attention of counsel
for Lead Plaintiffs as follows:
David T. Wissbroecker Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101 Attorney for Lead Plaintiffs Armand Rijken and Mark Ri ken
Juan E. Monteverde Faruqi & Faruqi, LP 369 Lexington Avenue Tenth Floor New York, New York 10017 Attorney for Lead Plaintiff Robert J. Collier
VIII. SETTLEMENT HEARING
The Court has scheduled a Settlement Hearing, which will be held 90 days from the entry
of the Scheduling and Preliminary Approval Order, at the Birch Bayh Federal Building and
United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204, to: (1) determine whether
the preliminary certifications discussed herein should be made final; (2) determine whether the
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class; (3) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered
pursuant to the Stipulation; (4) consider the application of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; (5) hear and determine any objections to the
Settlement or the Fee Petition; and (6) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.
The Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment
thereof, including the consideration of the Fee Petition, without further notice of any kind other
14
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 822
than oral announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof. The Court has
also reserved the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing with such
modification(s) as may be consented to by the parties to the Stipulation and without further
notice to the Class.
IX. RIGHT TO APPEAR AND OBJECT
Any member of the Class who (1) objects to the (a) Settlement, (b) Class action
determination, (c) adequacy of representation by the Lead Counsel, (d) dismissal of the Action,
(e) judgment to be entered in the Action, and/or (f) the Fee Petition; or (2) otherwise wishes to be
heard, may appear in person or by his or her or its attorney at the Settlement Hearing, at the
Class member's own expense, and present evidence or argument that may be proper and
relevant. If you want to do so, however, you must, not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to
the Settlement Hearing, file with the Court, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (1) a written notice of intention to
appear, (2) proof of your membership in the Class, (3) a detailed statement of your objections to
any matters before the Court, and (4) the grounds thereof or the reasons for your desiring to
appear and be heard, as well as documents or writings you desire the Court to consider. Also, on
or before the date that you file such papers, you must serve them by hand or overnight courier
upon each of the following attorneys of record:
David T. Wissbroecker Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101 Attorney for Lead Plaintiffs Armand Rijken and Mark Rj/ken
Juan E. Monteverde Faruqi & Faruqi, LP 369 Lexington Avenue Tenth Floor
15
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 823
New York, New York 10017 Attorney for Lead Plaintiff Robert J. Collier
James V. Masella, III Blank Rome LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10174-0208 Attorney for Defendants BrightPoint, Inc., Jerre L. Stead, Eliza Hermann, Robert J. Laikin, John F. Levy, Cynthia L. Lucchese, Richard W. Roedel, Michael L. Smith, Kari-Pekka Wilska, and Thomas J. Ridge
Any Class member who does not object to the Settlement, the Class action determination,
or the Fee Petition need not do anything. Unless the Court otherwise directs, no person will be
entitled to object to the approval of the Settlement, the Class action determination, the Fee
Petition, or the judgment to be entered in the Action, or otherwise to be heard, except by serving
and filing written objections as described above. Any person who fails to object in the manner
described above shall be deemed to have waived the right to object (including the right to appeal)
and will be forever barred from raising such objection in this or any other action or proceeding.
X. INTERIM INJUNCTION
Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Lead
Plaintiffs, all members of the Class, and their counsel, and each of them, and any of their
respective representatives, trustees, successors, heirs, and assigns, are barred and enjoined from
asserting, commencing, prosecuting, continuing, assisting, instigating, or in any way
participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action, whether directly,
representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, asserting any claims that are, or relate in
any way to, the Released Claims.
XI. ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
16
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 824
If the Court determines that the Settlement, as provided for in the Stipulation, is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, the parties will ask the Court to enter
an Order and Final Judgment, which will, among other things:
1. Approve the Settlement and adjudge the terms thereof to be fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e);
2. Authorize and direct the performance of the Settlement in accordance with its
terms and conditions and reserve jurisdiction to supervise the consummation of the Settlement
provided herein; and
3. Dismiss the Action with prejudice on the merits and release the Defendants, and
each of them, and all the Released Persons from the Released Claims.
XII. NOTICE TO THOSE HOLDING STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS
Brokerage firms, banks, and/or other persons or entities who held shares of common
stock of BrightPoint for the benefit of others are directed promptly to send this Notice to all of
their respective beneficial owners. If additional copies of the Notice are needed for forwarding to
such beneficial owners, any requests for such additional copies may be made to:
[Insert Address of Mailing Administrator Once Identified]
XIII. SCOPE OF THE NOTICE
This Notice is not all-inclusive. The references in this Notice to the pleadings in the
Action, the Stipulation, and other papers and proceedings are only summaries and do not purport
to be comprehensive. For the full details of the Action, claims which have been asserted by the
parties and the terms and conditions of the Settlement, including a complete copy of the
Stipulation, members of the Class are referred to the Court files in the Action. You or your
17
Case 1:12-cv-01016-TWP-DKL Document 55-4 Filed 10/18/12 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 825
attorney may examine the Court files during regular business hours of each business day at the
Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis,
IN 46204. Questions or comments may be directed to counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs:
David T. Wissbroecker Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101 Attorney for Lead Plain tiffs Armand R:jken and Mark Rfken
Juan E. Monteverde Faruqi & Faruqi, LP 369 Lexington Avenue Tenth Floor New York, New York 10017 Attorney for Lead Plaintiff Robert J. Collier
DO NOT WRITE OR TELEPHONE THE COURT.
Dated: I J,2012
18