Legal Opinion
Ziemack v. Centel Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided September 22, 1995No. 92 C 3551PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BRIAN BARNETT DUFF, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Decertify or, Alternatively, to Redefine the Class.1 For the reasons discussed below, we deny the motion without prejudice on the issue of inadequate representation arising from the presence of class members who sold shares during the class period. We deny the motion with prejudice as to all other grounds.
I
This is a securities fraud ease filed under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78t(a) (1981), Securities and Exchange…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- In Re Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2007
- Flood v. DominguezDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010
- In re Emulex Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2002
- In re Mutual Savings Bank Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.