Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03383/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03383-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re VAN WAGONER FUNDS, INC.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 02-03383 JSW

CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 17, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited

in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties

submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities

only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties

will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Lead Plaintiffs’ application for final approval of the

settlement.

Case 3:02-cv-03383-JSW Document 212 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Do Plaintiffs certify that the final approval of the settlement shall just apply to the

class as settling class and does not reflect any subsequent potential determination

by this Court regarding the adequacy of certifying a class under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 23?

2. Keeping in mind that the Court intends to adopt its tentative ruling and grant

Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend (order forthcoming),

do Plaintiffs intend to pursue further document discovery following final approval

of the settlement? 

3. Does Ernst & Young agree that the revised proposed final judgment and order

adequately incorporate the express wording of 15 U.S.C. § 87u-4(f)(7)(A) of the

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and provide a mutual bar for claims of

contribution?

4. Why does the final judgment and order approving settlement provide that should

the settlement not become effective in accordance with the terms of the

stipulation, the settling parties shall revert to their litigation positions as of

November 10, 2004? Why is the date of the filing of the second amended

consolidated complaint, December 13, 2004, not the more appropriate date for

reversion?

5. Is there any person or party present who wishes to object to the settlement? If so,

on what grounds?

6. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-03383-JSW Document 212 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2