IN RE: THE DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT GROUP INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT TRADING CORPORATION; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT TRADE FINANCE, INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT INCORPORATED; IN RE: BRR INCORPORATED; IN RE: DEAUVILLE UNITED CORPORATION; IN RE: DOUBLE OIL & GAS INCORPORATED; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT (ASIA) LTD.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT C.P. INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT CARIBE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT COMMERCIAL PAPER INCORPORATED; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT INTERNATIONAL INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT INVESTORS CORP.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT MBI CORP.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT PRODUCTS CORP.; IN RE: DREXEL INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT GOVERNMENT SECURITIES INC.; IN RE: DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT REALTY CORP.; IN RE: FIRST DBL CORPORATION, Debtors. THE DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT GROUP, INC.; DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT INCORPORATED, Debtors-Appellees, v. CLAIMANTS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE 1; POOL ADMINISTRATORS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE 3; SETTLING PARTICIPANTS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE 2, Claimants-Appellees, HART HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; REEVES INDUSTRIES, INC.; GEMINI OVERSEAS CORPORATION; COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO. PLC; COMMERCIAL UNION PENSIONS MANAGEMENT, LTD.; OVERBROOK NOMINEES, LTD.; STRAND NOMINEES, LTD., Claimants-Appellants., 995 F.2d 1138
Summary
Appellant fraud victims did not approve of a large settlement between appellee perpetrators and additional fraud victims that was approved by the district court in a case involving mainly securities fraud. Even though there was a multitude of parties that were affected by the settlement, the hearing approving the settlement was relatively brief. The court affirmed the district court's order, holding that appellants' due process rights were not violated. The court ruled that notice of the settlement was not required to set forth the settlement terms verbatim, and that the district court's hearing before approving the settlement was not an inadequate pro forma hearing. The court noted that the district court did give all parties the opportunity to object to the settlement and that certain matters were modified at the hearing. The court also ruled that because a portion of the settlement was subject to the approval of regulatory authorities, that portion of the settlement was not ...