Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04293/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04293-7/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 CHIRON CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No C-04-4293 VRW

ORDER

On November 30, 2007, the court entered an order denying

preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the abovecaptioned matter. 

In its order, the court questioned the adequacy of the

lead plaintiff and purported class representative, International

Union of Operating Engineers Local No 825 Pension Fund (“Local No

825"). Doc #130 at 23-29. One source of concern was the court’s

perception that the selection of the lead plaintiff was made

without open competition. In comments made at a December 20, 2007

case management conference, plaintiffs’ counsel responded to this

concern, stating – as the court understood it – that the statutory

process of identifying the plaintiff with the largest financial

interest was a competitive one and that the selection of Local No

825 as presumptive “most adequate plaintiff” was competitive. See

15 USC § 78u-4(a)(3). 

Case 3:04-cv-04293-VRW Document 138 Filed 12/21/07 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

As the court understands the framework of the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act, a competition to be designated

presumptive “most adequate plaintiff” occurs only if a member of

the purported class comes forward and seeks to rebut the

presumption that attaches upon the determination of the plaintiff

who “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the

class.” See 15 USC § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Because no purported

class member sought to rebut the presumption that Local No 825

invoked, the court regards the process of designating Local No 825

as not a competitive one.

In their submission on January 29, 2008, the court

invites counsel to comment on the court’s understanding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04293-VRW Document 138 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2