BHP Copper, Inc. : Magma Copper Company

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

BHP Copper, Inc. : Magma Copper Company Conclusion: On April 24, 2006, the Court held a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing and that same day Judge Frank Zapata signed an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

As summarized by the Notice of Proposed Settlement, on September 22, 2005, parties submitted various Motions in limine seeking evidentiary rulings in advance of trial. On December 5, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on the Motions in limine and entered its order denying substantially all of Defendants’ Motions in limine on December 7, 2005. On December 8, 2005, this matter was mediated before the Honorable Nicholas Politan, United States District Judge, District of New Jersey, Retired. On December 20, 2005, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the basic terms of the Settlement of this Action. On January 26, 2006, the parties executed the Stipulation of Settlement.

On September 23, 1996, Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on November 8, 1996. The Court did not rule on the Motion. On February 21, 2001, Plaintiff filed a Second (Corrected) Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). On March 9, 2001, the Defendants again moved to dismiss the Complaint and on March 22, 2001, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. On June 26, 2001, the Court heard argument on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. On March 29, 2002, the Court denied Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Counts I through IV. Count V relating to breach of fiduciary duty under Arizona law was dismissed. On April 29, 2002, Lead Plaintiff served document requests and commenced discovery. Lead Plaintiff moved for class certification on May 30, 2002. The Court certified this action as a class action on October 3, 2002. On October 27, 2003, the parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff moved for Summary Judgment as to Count I on liability only. Defendants moved for Summary Judgment on all Counts. On August 11, 2005, the Court denied all pending Motions for Summary Judgment and shortly thereafter set this matter for trial beginning on January 9, 2006.

The class action was filed on behalf of all persons who tendered their warrants to acquire Magma Copper Co. ("Magma") common stock at an exercise price of $8.25, expiration Nov. 30, 1995, pursuant to the May 1995 self-tender offer by Magma (the "Class"). The Complaint names as Defendants BHP Copper Inc., the successor to Magma, and BHP Sub Inc. and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., the successors in interest to Magma, as well as certain controlling shareholders and officers and directors of Magma. This action arises out of a self-tender offer by Magma for all of the outstanding listed common stock warrants, $8.50 exercise price of Magma (the "Magma Warrants") at a price of $8.25 per warrant. The self-tender commenced on or about May 16, 1995 and was concluded at midnight June 14, 1995. The Complaint charges the Defendants with violations of the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b), 13(e) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and breach of fiduciary duty and alleges, among other things, that the Warrant Tender Offer contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts regarding the fairness of the tender offer.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3330
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Metal Mining

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	BHP Copper, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	MCU
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.bhp.com.au

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Richard T. Hanley, et al. v. Warburg Pincus Capital Company, LP, et al.

COURT: D. Arizona	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-390
JUDGE NAME: Hon. William D. Browning
DATE FILED: 06/13/1996	SOURCE: Complaint
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/16/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/14/1995
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL) 515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 (voice) 561.835.9400, (fax) , Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC 4041 N. Cental Avenue, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ, 85012-3311nta (voice) 602.274.1100, (fax) , Burt & Pucillo LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 (voice) 800.349.4612, (fax) , Ryan, Wochok, Ryan & Reed, Ltd. 13 Paoli Ct , Paoli, PA, 19301 (voice) 610.296.9900, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/13/1996
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/06/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Richard T. Hanley, et al. v. Warburg Pincus Capital Company, LP, et al.

COURT: D. Arizona	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-390
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Frank R. Zapata
DATE FILED: 02/22/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/16/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/14/1995
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL) 515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 (voice) 561.835.9400, (fax) , Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC 4041 N. Cental Avenue, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ, 85012-3311nta (voice) 602.274.1100, (fax) , Burt & Pucillo LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 (voice) 800.349.4612, (fax) , Ryan, Wochok, Ryan & Reed, Ltd. 13 Paoli Ct , Paoli, PA, 19301 (voice) 610.296.9900, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 01/26/2006
Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Settlement Fairness Hearing And Right To Payment Of Settlement Consideration
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 02/17/2006
Judgment In A Civil Case
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/24/2006
Order And Final Judgment Approving Class Settlement And Awarding Fees And Expenses
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/24/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/25/2006

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�