
    Herbert V. Camp, Jr. v. Union Manufacturing Company et al.
    (6007)
    Daly, O’Connell and Norcott, Js.
    Argued October 12
    decision released November 8, 1988
    
      Herbert V. Camp, Jr., pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      Ralph G. Elliot, with whom, on the brief, was Jeremy H. Greshin, for the appellees (defendant Herbert E. Carlson et al.).
    
      George C. Hastings, for the appellee (defendant Walter F. Skillin).
    
      J. Read Murphy, for the appellee (defendant Union Manufacturing Company).
    
      Jacob Wieselman, with whom, on the brief, were Matthew Horowitz and David C. Evans, for the appellees (nondefendant shareholders).
    
      Henry W. O’Brien, for the appellee (defendant Charles Moore, Jr.).
   Per Curiam.

Section 52-572j does not require the assent of each individual shareholder in order for a settlement to be approved by the court. Moreover, the cause of action in a derivative suit belongs to the corporation, not to the nominal plaintiff. We find it persuasive that the federal courts that have considered this issue have held that the assent of the nominal plaintiff is not essential to the settlement. See Saylor v. Lindsley, 456 F.2d 896, 899 (2d Cir. 1972); Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 494 F.2d 799, 803 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 900, 95 S. Ct. 184, 42 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1974); Flinn v. FMC Corporation, 528 F.2d 1169, 1174 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 967, 96 S. Ct. 1462, 47 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1976); Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1216 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1115, 99 S. Ct. 1020, 59 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1979). We have reviewed the evidence and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. See Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818, 104 S. Ct. 77, 78 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1983).

There is no error.  