Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05344/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05344-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

CHRISTINE KUEHBECK, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 GENESIS MICROCHIP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 02-05344 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JULY 21, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities 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. Cf. 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 the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. 

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

1. Do the parties anticipate any conflicts among the class with respect to those

persons who purchased Genesis common stock between April 29, 2002 and May

Case 3:02-cv-05344-JSW Document 85 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

29, 2002 and for those persons who purchased common stock between May 30, 2

005 and June 14, 2002? See Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370,

1377078 (9th Cir. 1993).

2. There are certain class members who may receive nothing under the terms of the

Settlement, yet will still be bound by the settlement. Would the parties object to

including in the notice language similar to that required by Judge Walker in In re

Patriot American Hospitality Inc. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

40993, *11? If so, on what basis? 

3. Similarly, would the parties object to including language in the notice to the

effect that if certain conditions arise, the defendants may terminate the settlement

(see Settlement Agreement, ¶ 7.6)? If so, on what basis?

4. What is the rationale for a one time publication over multiple publications in

Investors Business Daily? Similarly, what is the rationale for using that

newspaper rather than a newspaper with broader circulation such as the Wall

Street Journal?

5. Is there a reason class counsel did not include their phone numbers in the notice? 

Do the parties object to including this information in the notice? See 15 U.S.C. §

78u-4(a)(7)(D).

6. This is an e-filing case. How do the parties plan to keep track of objections that

are not electronically filed with the Court?

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-05344-JSW Document 85 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2