Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01344-SLR Document 9 Filed 05/27/2005 Page 1 of 2
Buchanan Ingersoll PC
xutortwevs
The Nemours Building
Ttmd ,]_ Bmcggiydlg 1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1110
362 428 5555 Wilmington, DE 198014236
braceg§[email protected] T 302 428 S500
r 302 are assis
www.l¤uchaneningersoilxom
May 27, 2005
VIA ELFILING AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Rayner v. Assoc. Elec. & Gas Services Ltd., C.A. No. 04-1344-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
As Your Honor may recall, plaintiff John P. Rayner and defendant Associated Electric &
Gas Services Limited ("AEGIS") agreed to a settlement of the above-referenced action that is
contingent upon final approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery of the settlement of a related
class action, In re Emerging Communications, Inc. S/1oz·ehoIder·s Litig., C.A. No. 16415, to
which Mr. Raynor is a defendant. In an Order dated March 14, 2005, the Court stayed the
parties’ initial discovery obligations and telephonic scheduling conference. Pursuant to that
Order, I write on behalf of both parties to update the Court on tire status ofthe Emerging action.
On May 20, 2005, counsel for the class plaintiffs in the Emerging action requested that
the Court of Chancery authorize the mailing of a settlement notice to class members and
schedule a hearing to consider the fairness ofthe settlement. (A copy of class counsel’s letter to
the Court of Chancery is enclosed for Your I·lonor’s reference.) As ofthe writing of this letter,
the Court of Chancery has not responded to this request or set a date for a settlement hearing.
Assuming that the Court of Chancery authorizes the mailing of notice to class members
promptly, any settlement hearing likely will not be held for at least 45-60 days. Accordingly, the
parties respectfully submit that a continued stay of this action is appropriate and propose that
they provide the Court a further update on the Emerging action on or before August 3 l , 2005 in
the event that this action is not dismissed in accordance with the parties’ settlement by that date.
Of course, should the settlement of the Emerging action not he approved by the Court or"
Chancery or become ineffective for any other reason, the parties will notify the Court promptly
and proceed with this action. The parties further propose that the time period within which
AEGIS must answer or otherwise move in response to the complaint in this action shouid be
extended until the date 30 days after notification to the Court that the Emerging settlement is no
longer effective.
Pennsylvania Z: New York ri Washington, DC == lilorizln rr Now.1ei·sey rr l)clawm·c :2 C:rlil`ornin

Case 1:04-cv-01344-SLR Document 9 Filed 05/27/2005 Page 2 of 2
May 27, 2005
Page 2
A proposed order reflecting this schedule and maintaining the stay implemented by the
Court’s previous Order is enclosed for Your I-Ionor’s consideration. If Your Honor has any
questions concerning this matter, counsel for Mr. Rayner and AEGIS are available at the
convenience of the Court.
Respectfully,
Thad J. Bracegirdle
Enclosures
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (via e—filing, w/encl.)
Barry M. Klayrnan, Esquire (via hand delivery, w/encl.)