Legal Opinion
In re Oracle Securities Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 18, 1990No. C-90-0931-VRWPublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL
WALKER, District Judge.
Four of the law firms representing Oracle shareholders1 have bid to serve as class counsel. This order describes and compares those bids, and then selects class counsel on the basis of the bidders’qualifications and fee proposals. In addition, the order modifies the method contemplated in the August 3 order for reimbursing class counsel’s out-of-pocket expenses and considers certain suggestions by counsel in the two related derivative cases2 regarding the selection of class counsel. 131 F.R.D. 688.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE BIDS.
The court’s…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Marek v. ChesnySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In the Matter Of: Synthroid Marketing LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- In re Cendant Corp. LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Acosta v. Trans Union, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2007
- In Re Oracle Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1993
- In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2014
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.