Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04263/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04263-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

QUINTUS SECURITIES LITIGATION

This order applies to:

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No C 00-4263 VRW

ORDER

The court is in receipt of the parties’ joint motion to

(1) restore this litigation to the court’s active docket, (2)

approve the parties’ stipulation to add Quintus Corporation

(“Quintus”) as a named defendant solely for the purpose of

consummating settlement of the litigation and (3) grant preliminary

approval of the proposed class action settlement. Doc #252. 

The parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART. The clerk

is DIRECTED to restore this litigation, including all related

cases, to the court’s active docket. Further, per the parties’

Case 3:00-cv-04263-VRW Document 254 Filed 02/07/06 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

stipulation, id, Ex 2, Quintus is hereby ADDED as a named defendant

for purposes of consummating the settlement of this litigation.

The court is not prepared to grant the parties’ request

for preliminary settlement approval on the basis of the extremely

sketchy presentation the parties have made. See id at 3-5. The

court particularly requests greater detail on the basis for the

plan of allocation and the fee award for which lead counsel “might

decide to apply.” Id at 4. 

It is appropriate to resolve any issues surrounding the

fee award before notice is sent to the class so the class can be

apprised of the net recovery it can expect to receive. 

Accordingly, briefing should (1) explain why intervening Ninth

Circuit authority extinguishes class counsel’s implicit obligation

to honor the fee arrangement upon which the court’s designation of

lead counsel was predicated, see generally In re Quintus Sec Litig,

148 F Supp 2d 967 (ND Cal 2001), and (2) discuss counsel’s newly

proposed fee award in accordance with the principles set forth in

In re HPL Technologies Sec, Inc Litig, 366 F Supp 2d 912 (ND Cal

2005) (Walker, J).

Briefing shall not exceed twenty pages and shall be

submitted on or before March 1, 2006. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:00-cv-04263-VRW Document 254 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2