Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01344-SLR Document 9-2 Filed 05/27/2005 Page 1 of 2
sossnrnst, Monnsrr, cnoss s cooosss, r>. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE MOI, 9lQ MARKET STREET
p_ O BOX rgyg TELEPHONE {302) 65641433
JOSEPH A-ROSENTHAL WILMINGTON, DELAWARE zeseenoyo- n·.cs11vor.s zscai assess?
NORMAN M. MON!-tA.l“l“ E»MAIL [email protected]
KEVEN GROSS
JEF?R.EY S. GODDESS
C;A.l¤.MELL.A P. KEENER
EDWARD B. ROSEHTHAL May 20,
.5ES5iC.A ZELDIN

The Honorable Jack B. Jacobs
- Supreme Court oi Detaware
Canrei State Office Buiiding
820 N. French Street ‘
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
r Re: In Re Emerging Communications, Inc. Shareholders Litig.
Dei. Ch., Consolidated Civit Action No. 16415 NC
Dear Justice Jacobs:
The parties have agreed to proceed with a hearing on the
proposed settlement of this action on the basis of the settiernent papers
previously submitted to the Court with Mr. Aliingharns ietter dated February
7, 2005.
I have been informed that it/lr. Prosser and his advisors have
informed Greenlight Capital, L.P. ("GreenIight") that business developments
have rendered unlikely the ability of l\/lr. Prosser and the entities he controls
to perform all the settlement terms with respect to Greeniight, and that
Greenltght and it/tr. Prosser have commenced discussions concerning a
modification of the settlement terms as to Greenlight. I further understand
that any modifications under discussion conternpiate a diminution in the
settlement consideration that Greenlight wiii receive. There is no
contemplation of any change in settlement terms as to the Bricketl Class. The
settlement consideration proposed for the Class derives from insurance
proceeds and is not affected by any business issues that impact the
Greenlight settlement.

Case 1:04-cv-01344-SLR Document 9-2 Filed 05/27/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorabie Jack B. Jacobs
lt/ley 20, 2005
Page 2
The proposed Class notice does not mention renewed
negotiations between li/ir. Prosser and Greerilight, and we do not believe it
needs to do so. We do not know when or even if the renewed negotiations
between Greenlight and Mr. Prosser will resuit in a modified settlement as to
Greenlight. Any description of current status could be effected by subsequent
events. Plaintiff does not want to continue to bold the settlement hostage to
the fluid GreeniighUProsser situation. We would, of course, expect that
Greenlight and it/ir. Prosser wouid commit to the Court, as they have informed
us, that any modified Greenlight settlement would result in a diminution of
consideration flowing to Greenlight. in these circumstances, the proposed
notice describes the best potential outcome for Greeriiight, there would be no
prejudice to Class members if Greenlight decides to accept less, and the
notice therefore more than adequately apprises Class members of metenal
terms ofthe proposed resolution of the litigation.
lf the parties' proposal is acceptable to the Court, l ask that Your
l—lonor’s chambers provide me with dates convenient to the Courts calendar
for a settlement hearing. l will communicate with other counsel to determine
a mutually agreeable date. Of course, if Your Honor has any questions,
counsel are available to respond.
Respectfully,
%ow /%.4/
Norman ll/l. it/lonhait (#1040)
Nl\/lwtzmst '
cc: Thomas J. Aliingham lt, Esquire
Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquire
. David C. McBride, Esquire
Shane T. Rowley, Esquire
Register in Chancery