In Re Cylink Securities Litigation

Good Law
274 F. Supp. 2d 1109·2003 WL 21756898·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13085
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 23, 2003C 98-4294 VRWCalifornia3,394 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

The amended consolidated complaint in this class action securities litigation alleges that defendants violated § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that provision and § 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t. Doc. # 81. On September 10, 2002, with the assistance of former Magistrate Judge Infante, the parties reached a settlement agreement that they subsequently presented to the court for preliminary approval. Doc. # 137. On November 15, 2002, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, certified the class and approved the form of notice to be used to notify class members of the settlement agreement. Doc. # 140. Plaintiffs now move without opposition for final approval of the settlement and an award of attorney fees and costs. Doc. # 144. For the reasons detailed below, plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of settlement and an award of attorney fees and costs (Doc. # 144) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion for an order authorizing distribution of the net settlement fund to class members (Doc. # 149) is also GRANTED. Because the court finds these matters suitable for determination without…

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.