AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The New Mexico State Investment Council (NMSIC) initiated a lawsuit in 2011 against seventeen defendants, including Alfred Jackson, to recover investments made under a "pay-to-play" scheme. The lawsuit asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. This case was considered an "alternate remedy" under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA), allowing the plaintiffs-intervenors to intervene and hold the same rights as in their qui tam actions. NMSIC entered into a settlement agreement with Jackson in November 2014, which required Jackson to pay $250,000, cooperate in NMSIC’s investigation, and testify upon request, releasing him from any claims related to NMSIC investments (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (NMSIC): Argued for the approval of the settlement agreement with Jackson, which required Jackson to pay $250,000 and cooperate in further investigations. NMSIC submitted affidavits and documents supporting the settlement's fairness and adequacy (paras 4-5).
• Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants: Objected to the settlement, arguing it was not fair, adequate, or reasonable. They raised concerns similar to those in previous consolidated appeals and argued that the district court's approval of the settlement usurped the discretion vested in the judge pro-tem by the Supreme Court. They also claimed NMSIC failed to provide admissible evidence supporting the settlement (paras 4-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the settlement agreement with Defendant Alfred Jackson was fair, adequate, and reasonable under all circumstances.
• Whether the district court's approval of the Jackson settlement usurped the discretion vested in the judge pro-tem by the Supreme Court (paras 6-8).

Disposition

• The district court's approval of the settlement with Jackson was affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, Michael E. Vigil, and M. Monica Zamora, found that the appellants' arguments against the settlement with Jackson were similar to those in previous consolidated appeals and were thus resolved by reference to the Court's earlier opinion. The Court also addressed the unique argument regarding the Supreme Court's decision in State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., clarifying that the Supreme Court's order did not indicate that the judge pro-tem had authority to vacate rulings entered by another district court, especially when those rulings were pending appeal. The Court concluded that the district court's findings—that the appellants did not cross-examine Jackson or identify evidence in opposition to the motion, and that the evidence submitted by NMSIC was sufficient to evaluate the settlement's reasonableness—supported the decision to affirm the settlement's approval (paras 6-9).