Wenderhold

Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp.

Good Law
1999 WL 706027·188 F.R.D. 577·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14040
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 1999Nos. C 98-4292 VRW, C 98-4-296 VRW, C 98-4360 VRW, C 98-4536 VRW, C 98-4603 VRW, C 98-4673 VRW, C 98-4757 VRWCalifornia4,977 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Walker, J.

The above are seven related securities class actions filed against Cylink Corporation and certain of its officers and directors. The plaintiffs in each of these actions allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 17 CFR § 240 .10b-5. The purported class consists of purchasers of Cylink common stock during various class periods. Some of the named plaintiffs in the seven cases along with two purported class members who have not filed complaints seek as a group to be designated lead plaintiffs (Cylink Shareholder Group) pursuant to section 21D(a)(3)(B), the lead plaintiff provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act amend- *579 merits to the Exchange Act. The Cylink Shareholder Group seek to appoint a consortium of law firms to serve as co-lead counsel for the class. Confronted with this multiparty bid for designation, the court addresses the following issues: provisional certification of lead plaintiff(s), provisional class certification, appointment of class counsel and consolidation.

I

As a preliminary matter, the court must consider whether notice was adequate under the PSLRA notice provisions. The undersigned…

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.