§Why CasetextPricing

Edwards v. Satcon Technology Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Consolidate Cases APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF; AND APPROVAL OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL

11 Cited authorities

  1. Guckenberger v. Boston University

    957 F. Supp. 306 (D. Mass. 1997)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that a college president “operated” the institution where the president helped to develop discriminatory policies

  2. Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc.

    939 F. Supp. 57 (D. Mass. 1996)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that only named plaintiffs, rather than all parties moving for appointment as lead plaintiff, need comply with the certification requirement

  3. In re Bank of Boston Corp. Securites Lit.

    762 F. Supp. 1525 (D. Mass. 1991)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that a plaintiff only has standing to sue based on misrepresentations made prior to the date he purchased stock

  4. Barnet v. Elan Corp.

    236 F.R.D. 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 36 times
    Noting split

  5. In re Lernout

    138 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Mass. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Approving three firms as co-lead counsel in part because of the geographic scope of the litigation and the attendant need for greater attorney resources

  6. In re General Electric Securities Litigation

    09 Civ. 1951 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Consolidating actions raising Exchange Act claims where there was "substantial overlap in the complaints"

  7. Coopersmith v. Lehman Broth., Inc.

    344 F. Supp. 2d 783 (D. Mass. 2004)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that the PSLRA's 60 day requirement can be extended, that the "PSLRA does not limit lead plaintiffs to those who have filed motions within 60 days of the publication of notice," and that the "PSLRA does not require speed over due consideration of appropriate candidates"

  8. Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. Carematrix Corp.

    354 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D. Mass. 2000)   Cited 7 times
    Granting joint motion to appoint co-lead plaintiffs after "the plaintiffs groups had resolved their differences, chosen four individuals as lead plaintiffs, and proposed two law firms as co-lead counsel"

  9. Leech v. Brooks Automation, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-11068-RWZ (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2006)

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-11068-RWZ. December 13, 2006 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RYA ZOBEL, District Judge Plaintiff Charles E.G. Leech, Sr. ("Leech"), has filed this putative class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of defendant Brooks Automation, Inc. ("Brooks") between July 25, 2001 and May 22, 2006 (the "Class Period"). Three parties seek to be appointed lead plaintiffs in the putative class action: (1) the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association ("LACERA");

  10. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,256 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  11. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,471 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party