Legal Opinion
Sakhrani v. Brightpoint, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided December 8, 1999No. IP-99-870-C H/G, IP-99-1157-C H/G, IP-99-943-C H/G and IP-99-1138-C H/GPublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY ON MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR PUTATIVE CLASS
HAMILTON, District Judge. .
Like many recent putative class actions alleging securities fraud, these consolidated cases illustrate the law of unintended consequences. The principal issue is the selection of a “lead plaintiff’ under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3). The specific problem is whether a number of investors who have nothing in common other than their investment in a defendant’s securities may aggregate their individual losses to form a “group of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- In re Oxford Health Plans Inc., Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- In re Donnkenny Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- In re Cendant Corp. LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- In Re Network Associates, Inc., Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1999
- Gluck v. CellStar Corp.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In Re: Cendant Corporation LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- In re eSpeed, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Newby v. Enron Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2002
- In Re Bank One Shareholders Class ActionsDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2000
- Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.