McFarland

McFarland v. Memorex Corp.

Good Law
96 F.R.D. 357
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1982Nos. C-79-2007-WAI(SJ), C-79-2926-WAI(SJ)California4,382 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ingram, J.

*360 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter came before this Court on plaintiffs’ motions for certification of two classes, a plaintiff class and a defendant class, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs bring this first motion to certify a class of all persons 1 who purchased the common stock of Memorex Corporation from August 9, 1978 to October 31, 1978, pursuant to an alleged misleading registration statement and prospectus. They bring the second motion to certify a defendant class of underwriters, to be represented by defendants Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Inc. (“Lehman”), and Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., (“Blyth”), for the purpose of litigating the claims under Sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C., Sections 77k and 771(2) 2

The Court has reviewed and considered all the arguments presented by the parties in their motion papers and at the two hearings that were held on this matter. On May 14, 1982, this Court filed a memorandum which listed certain tentative inclinations on some aspects of these motions. However, it is the ruling contained in the present memorandum which shall prevail in this matter.

While…

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.