Treasurer of State of Connecticut v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP ( 2005 )

CONCURRING OPINION BY

Judge PELLEGRINI.

While I join with the majority, I find that the controlling fact in finding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to approve the proposed settlement is that the named Claimants, sophisticated investors who desire to settle, represent 71% of the limited partnership interests in Keystone Venture. All of the other limited partners declined to participate in the action, some in part because their interests were protected by the named Claimants. If the named Claimants’ interests had been substantially less, I would have affirmed the trial court’s decision to disapprove the settlement.