19 Cited authorities

In re Cendant Corp. Litigation
264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 728 times
Holding that the PSLRA is clear that "the power to `select and retain' lead counsel belongs . . . to the lead plaintiff, and the court's role is confined to deciding whether to `approve' that choice" and that should the court disagree with the lead plaintiffs choice "it should clearly state why . . . and should direct the lead plaintiff to undertake an acceptable selection process"
In re Vivendi Universal, S.A.
242 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 109 times 1 Legal Analyses
Limiting a class "to foreign shareholders whose courts, in the unlikely event of successive litigations, are likely to give res judicata effect to any judgment herein"
Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Berger
205 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) Cited 79 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding predominance because "[t]he proof for the claims of misrepresentation or omission, materiality, and . . . scienter are all based on a common nucleus of facts and a common course of conduct"
In re Baan Co. Securities Litigation
186 F.R.D. 214 (D.D.C. 1999) Cited 54 times
Rejecting a proposed group of 466 individuals
Takeda v. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
67 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 50 times
Finding slightly different class periods do not preclude a finding of typicality because varying class periods may be harmonized
Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc.
206 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D.N.J. 2002) Cited 42 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the group could not work effectively to adequately represent the interests of the class because the group "concede[d] that the only pre-existing relationship among the various proposed individuals [was] the fact that they all invested through the same broker"
Dubin v. Miller
132 F.R.D. 269 (D. Colo. 1990) Cited 57 times
Finding that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants had threatened his life and assertions of a conspiracy headed by a competitor or foreign power were "the product of a wild imagination" and subjected his credibility to "extraordinary attack."
Tahan v. Hodgson
662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 70 times
Rejecting the defendant's arguments and extending comity to an Israeli default judgment in part because the “Defendant's arguments ... could have and should have been made in Israel. He cannot fail to contest the Israeli plaintiff and then declare that he would have won.”
In re Activision Securities Litigation
621 F. Supp. 415 (N.D. Cal. 1985) Cited 57 times
Finding joint litigation economic where only 150 claims existed
In re Lernout
138 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. Mass. 2001) Cited 25 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
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,778 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,820 times 1247 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,653 times 52 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al

19 Cited authorities

Limiting a class "to foreign shareholders whose courts, in the unlikely event of successive litigations, are likely to give res judicata effect to any judgment herein"

Finding predominance because "[t]he proof for the claims of misrepresentation or omission, materiality, and . . . scienter are all based on a common nucleus of facts and a common course of conduct"

Rejecting a proposed group of 466 individuals

Finding slightly different class periods do not preclude a finding of typicality because varying class periods may be harmonized

Holding that the group could not work effectively to adequately represent the interests of the class because the group "concede[d] that the only pre-existing relationship among the various proposed individuals [was] the fact that they all invested through the same broker"

Finding that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants had threatened his life and assertions of a conspiracy headed by a competitor or foreign power were "the product of a wild imagination" and subjected his credibility to "extraordinary attack."

Rejecting the defendant's arguments and extending comity to an Israeli default judgment in part because the “Defendant's arguments ... could have and should have been made in Israel. He cannot fail to contest the Israeli plaintiff and then declare that he would have won.”

Finding joint litigation economic where only 150 claims existed

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

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party