Takeda

Takeda v. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.

Good Law
67 F. Supp. 2d 1129·1999 WL 817223
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 28, 1999CV 99-00697 MMM (BQRx)California5,538 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrow, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS OF ZAKS GROUP AND KADNER GROUP FOR CONSOLIDATION OF -RELATED ACTIONS; GRANTING MOTION OF KADNER-7 FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND APPOINTMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL; AND DENYING MOTION OF ZAKS GROUP FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND APPOINTMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL

This is a securities fraud action brought pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA” or the “Reform Act”). Two plaintiff groups move separately for the consolidation of this case with related actions, for their respective appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, and for appointment of their counsel as Lead Counsel.

The six cases allege the same misrepresentations and omissions by Turbodyne and its representatives, and seek to establish definitions of the Class and Class Periods that are either identical to one another or nearly so. All parties that have addressed the issue agree the cases should be consolidated. Consequently, in the interest of judicial economy and to reheve the parties and absent class members of the burdens associated with participating in duplicative litigation, the court concludes that the six related cases should…

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.