is an obvious critical element in determining the adequacy
of the lead plaintiff to be selected. That in turn makes
the portion of any recovery to be paid to class counsel (and
hence that will not be retained by the class members
themselves) an important factor in the evaluation. For that
reason this Court expects to consider, although it should be
stressed that this Court has not yet decided either way on
the matter, the possibility of inviting sealed competitive

bids from counsel who seek to represent the class (see In re

Bank One Shareholders Class Actions, 96 F.Supp.2d 780 (N.D.

T1l1. 2000) and In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation,

918 F.Supp. 1190 (N.D. Til. 1996)). In light of that
possibility:

(a) Until further order of this Court, counsel in
the 12 different cases are ordered not to discuss
between themselves any aspects of the fee arrangements
on which they would respectively be prepared to act as
class counsel.

(b) At or before the April 6 status hearing, each
counsel in each of the 12 cases is ordered to submit a
statement that no such discussion with counsel in any
of the other cases has taken place before the entry of
this memorandum order or, if any such prior discussion

has taken place, is ordered to submit under seal a


3, In light of the identity of subject matter of all
12 actions involved here, this Court contemplates the sua
sponte entry of an order at the next status hearing date
(scheduled for 9:30 a.m. April 6, 2001) consolidating all of
the actions both for pretrial purposes and for trial (see
Subsection (a) (3) (B) (44)) unless any of the parties in any
case were to provide a reasonable showing as to why that
action should not be taken. If the short time interval
remaining between the entry of this memorandum order and
that April 6 hearing date prevents any party from proffering
a written statement making such a showing, this Court will
of course entertain any oral submission in that respect at
the time of the April 6 status hearing.

4, Because Subsection (a) (3) (B) (1) calls for this
Court to determine the member or members of the putative
plaintiff class who is or are “most capable of adequately
representing the interests of class members” (referred to,
as the statute does, as the “most adequate plaintiff”), and
because there is a rebuttable and not conclusive statutory
presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is a person or
group having the largest financial interest in the relief
sought by the class (Subsection (a) (3) (B) (iii)), this
court’s view is that maximizing the recovery that will inure

to the class members (whether via settlement or Litigation)


statement describing the nature and content of such
discussions.

(c) It is recognized that certain law firms are
reflected as co-counsel in more than one of the cases
in this group. In order to preserve the integrity of a
bidding procedure if one were to be adopted, while at
the same time avoiding conflict of interest situations
for such law firms, until further order of this Court
the members of those firms are ordered not to discuss
the subject of any prospective fee arrangements in any

of the cases in which they are acting as co-counsel .

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 26, 2001


————S————

Minute Order Form (06/97)

- ” United States District Court, Northern District of Slinois
Name 0! igne 1d i : sittin i ~ |
a asieate Jae Castillo SAE ed Sue SHADUR
CASE NUMBER 01 C 1542 DATE 3/26/2001
CASE Mattie vs. Comdisco, Inc., et al
TITLE __]

of the motion being presented.

Tin the Following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, 8 ~ plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintif, and (b) state briefly the nature

COFRCP4(m) 1 General Rule 21 CIFRCP4I1(a)(1) 1 FRCP4 1 (a)(2)-

Securities Litigation “ will be employed in all future orders and opinions.

(1) a [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

() a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above] ~ |
2) a Brief in support of motion due__-

@) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due___-

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on ___set for at

() | Status hearing set for 4/6/01 at 9:30 A.M..

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on ____ setfor_ ss at_
a) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) im {Bench/Jury trial] {Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) im} This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs{by/agreement/pursuant to]

ao iw [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Order. Plaintiff's motion for a finding of relatedness is
granted. (6-1) Case numbers 01 C 974 (Shadur), 01 C 998 (Shadur), 01 C 999 (Conlon), 01 C 1017
(Manning), 01 C 1060 (Leinenweber), 01 C1111 Gottschall), 01 C 1148 (Plunkett), 01C 1 177 (Norgle),

01 C1479 (Norgle), 01 C 1542 (Castillo) and 01 C 1586 (Holderman) are all found to be related to case

01 C874. For convenience, a separate case number (01 C 2110) and the general caption “In re Comdisco

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices ire
tices required. ‘number of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

ae
Notified counsel by telephone. Tse Apekeed

Docketing to mail notices S
Mail AO 450 form

[LOS

docketinys deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate, judge.

yarn
i aan) date maited notice

courtroom ae vee Sb paboae J tes 2

SN deputy's
initials

SN

Date/time received in
— central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



Exhibit A

Case No. Plaintiff

01 C 874 Michael Blitzer

01 Cc 974 Sidney Weinstein

01 Cc 998 John Hinsley

ol Cc 999 I & M Associates, Inc.
ol Cc 1017 Gail Fialkov

01 C 1060 Andrew Kandel

01 C 1211 Joseph Falzone

ol ¢c 1148 Christopher Manolakes
ol Cc 1177 Michael Ceasar as Trustee
o1 Cc 1479 Robert Waring

01 C 1542 Michael Mattie

o1 C 1586 John Kuzia


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLIN
BASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL BLITZER, individually and ) No. 01 c 874
on behalf of all others similarly ) (also entered in Case Nos.

situated, ) o1 c 974
) 01 € 998 ype SHAOUR
plaintiffs, yore 999
) 01 ¢ 1017 MAGI
v. ) 91 C 1060 STRATE JUDGE ASHMAN
) o1 ¢ 1222
coMpIsco, INC., NICHOLAS K. ) o1 c 1148 mare
PONTICKES and JOHN J- VOSICKY, ) o4 ¢ 21177 pee ey
) o1 ¢ 1479
pefendants. ) o1 C 1542 MAR 28 ant
) 01 C 1586)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court’s calendar now includes the above-captioned
lowest -numbered putative securities class action in this pistrict
court (01 © 874) as well as two other such actions (01 C 974 and
01 ¢ 998), each stemming from the plaintiffs’ purchase of shares
of common stock in comdisco, inc. during the period from
ganuary 25, 2000 through October 3, 2000. Because nine other
identical jJawsuits then followed in short order--& series of
actions prought by different putative class representatives (for
the ident ically-identified class) against the same defendants-~
this Court grants the motion heretofore filed in the Blitzer
action for reassignment of those other nine actions to this
Court's calendar on relatedness grounds under the provisions of
this pistrict Court’s LR 40.4. This early procedural order is
being entered not only in the Lowest -numbered case (entitled as

reflected in the caption of this memorandum order) but also in


the other 11 higher-numbered cases (the case numbers are also
jisted in the caption, and the respective plaintiffs and case
numbers are also set out in Ex. A to this memorandum order):

1. For convenience, 4 separate case number and the
general caption “In re Comdisco Securities Litigation” will
be employed in all future orders and opinions in these
actions. That new case number is being stamped on the file
original of this memorandum order. In any situation in
which fewer than all of the actions are implicated in any
future order or opinion, the caption will also state
‘Entered only in Case Nols}. ---”

2. Under 15 U.S.C. g78u-4 (a) (3) (A) r* the plaintiff in
Case No. 01 C 874 is obligated to have published a notice
looking to the appointment of a lead plaintiff to represent
the putative class. It is possible (though Subsection
(a) (3) (A) (43) specifies that it is not necessary) that one
or more of the plaintiffs in the other listed cases may have
published similar notices. Counsel in each action in which
such a notice has peen published are ordered to file in this
Court’s chambers, on or before April 5, 2001, a statement as
to their compliance with that requirement (including as an

exhibit a copy of the notice).

_

1 All future references to subparts of 15 U.S.C. §78u-4

will omit that portion of the statutory designation, reading
simply “Subsection--.”