In Re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation

Good Law
965 F. Supp. 1327·97 Daily Journal DAR 13098·1997 WL 274743·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7352
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 20, 1997C-94-2817-VRWCalifornia5,483 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

The first of these related securities class actions was filed on August 5, 1994, one day after defendant California Micro Devices Corporation (“CAMD”) announced that it had issued materially false financial statements. A number of additional actions were filed over the course of several months as new information emerged concerning the company.

The court issued an order on October 19, 1994, establishing a bidding procedure to be used for selection of class counsel and suggesting that a status conference be held on October 28 or November 3, 1994, to facilitate that process. At the request of counsel, that conference was delayed until January 19, 1995. In the interim, counsel for CAMD and certain plaintiffs’ lawyers engaged in settlement discussions without notifying the court that they were doing so. On August 4,1995, the court issued an order denying preliminary approval of the settlement that resulted from those negotiations. The court also found the firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (“LCHB”) unsuited to represent the class in the absence of a showing of affirmative support for the settlement proposal from “a significant portion of the prospective class.” In re…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.