In Re Quintus Securities Litigation

Good Law
148 F. Supp. 2d 967·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8552
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 31, 2001C-00-4263 VRW, C-00-3894 VRWCalifornia10,367 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

Under F.R.C.P. 23, the court, lead plaintiff and class counsel are fiduciaries for absent class members. Although their respective roles differ, each of these fiduciaries must undertake to ensure that the class receives competent representation at a fair cost.

Plaintiff Quinn Barton afforded such representation for the class in Copper Mountain and hence was designated lead plaintiff in that litigation. Barton did this by engaging qualified lawyers to serve as class counsel on terms that were advantageous to the class. Because none of the prospective lead plaintiffs in Quintus did this, the court appointed Colin Barry Hill as a nominal lead plaintiff and undertook a competitive selection of lead counsel. The court received bids from five law firms: Beatie & Osborn LLP (Beatie); Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, PC (Berman); Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (Cohen); Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (Lieff); and Weiss & Yourman (Weiss). Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Milberg), which had filed some of the Quintus complaints, did not submit a bid. But because Milberg had sought to represent the class, the terms of its proposed representation are…

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.