The court approved a modification to a class action settlement and a more efficient distribution method than the traditional notice-and-claim process.

In this case of first impression, the court found that the liquidation standard did not operate as a per se requirement for plan approval.

Government sanctions that blocked the transfer of shares did not preclude the court from authorizing the eventual issuance of writs of attachment, pending government approval, as mere authorization did not alter sanctioned body's continued ownership of the shares and therefore did not effect a prohibited transfer.

The court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the subject agreement was an instrument for the sale of stock, because it did not have discretion to decline jurisdiction, and because common law favored giving deference to plaintiff's choice of forum.

Federal court lacked jurisdiction over purely state law claims alleging nuisance and consumer fraud arising from fossil fuel companies' purported disinformation campaigns to suppress the link between fossil fuel products and climate damage.

The court held that plaintiff's claims were not ripe or justiciable and its breach of representations claim failed to state a claim where plaintiff did not and could not plead damages.

The court held that plaintiff shareholders were required to make a demand on the board prior to filing suit. Because they did not make a demand, their claims failed. Motion to dismiss granted.