Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05486/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05486-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE VIOLIN MEMORY, INC. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION

Case No.: 13-cv-05486 YGR

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION RE: UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

SETTLEMENT 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 154, 155 

On January 29, 2016 plaintiffs Alan Richards and Ali Shehk (“Lead Plaintiffs”) filed a 

stipulation of settlement (Dkt. No. 154) and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class 

action settlement. (Dkt. No. 155). The Court has conducted an initial review of the submissions and 

requires additional information prior to a hearing on the matter. Specifically, the Court requires 

further explanation and justification concerning the following: 

1. the plan of allocation of the settlement funds, beyond simply stating that it will be based on 

a “pro rata” distribution; 

2. whether class members must independently complete the schedule of transactions on the 

proof of claim form or if the administrator will pre-fill the form; 

3. the amount of anticipated litigation expenses; 

4. the amount of anticipated administrative fees; and 

5. the opt-out threshold at which Defendants are allowed to terminate the stipulation and 

settlement agreement. 

The Court also requests that Lead Plaintiffs revise the proposed class notice (Dkt. No. 154-2), 

proposed proof of claim and release form (Dkt. No. 154-3), and proposed summary class notice (Dkt. 

Case 4:13-cv-05486-YGR Document 159 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

No. 154-4) to provide more transparency and simplicity.1 With respect to the proposed class notice, 

the first three pages thereof are especially cumbersome and must be revised to be more user-friendly 

for all class members. The proposed class notice must also explain the proposed plan of distribution 

of class funds in more detail. With respect to the proposed summary class notice, it must be revised to 

make clear that counsel will seek twenty-five (25) percent of the settlement amount. 

Lead Plaintiff shall file the additional information as required herein, and revised class notice 

and claim form documents, no later than March 1, 2016 at noon. The hearing currently set for March 

8, 2016 will remain on calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 23, 2016 

 ____________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 1

 The Court recommends that counsel for Lead Plaintiffs review class notices previously 

approved by the undersigned, including those approved in Bernardino v. Target Corp., Inc., Civil 

Case No. 12-cv-04639-YGR (Dkt. No. 51-1) and Maritime Asset Mgt., LLC v. Neurogesx, Inc., Civil 

Case No. 12-cv-05034-YGR (Dkt. No. 94-1). Counsel may also wish to review the proposed, but not 

yet approved, revised class notices submitted in Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., Civil Case No. 13-cv03476-YGR (Dkt. Nos. 105-1, 105-2). 

Case 4:13-cv-05486-YGR Document 159 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 2