Source: http://securities.stanford.edu/filings-case.html?id=101925
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 09:57:10
Document Index: 36538619

Matched Legal Cases: ['§11', '§ 10', '§ 11', '§ 11', 'ART: 03', '§ 1292']

Exodus Communications Inc. Securities Litigation
On or around 10/31/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)
Filing Date: July 12, 2001
According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2001, on July 12, 2001, the Company and five of its current and former executive officers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit is captioned Paul Ruthfield v. Exodus Communications, Inc., et al., No. 01-CV-2661. Between July 16, 2001 and August 31, 2001 fourteen substantially identical lawsuits were filed in the same court, each naming the same group of defendants.
These complaints are all brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 30, 2001 and June 20, 2001 and allege essentially identical violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act. In general, the complaints allege that Exodus and the individual defendants misrepresented Exodus' financial prospects for the second quarter of 2001 to inflate the value of the Company’s common stock. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages for the alleged inflated price of the Company’s common stock purchased by all class members, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The Company anticipates that the complaints pending in federal court will be consolidated into a single proceeding. The Company has not yet responded to any of these lawsuits, and no discovery has been conducted. This action has been automatically stayed with the Company’s Chapter 11 filing.
As summarized by the latest docket posted, on October 9, 2001, Exodus Communications filed a notice of bankruptcy. On October 30, 2001, the Court entered the Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., and William H. Friedman as lead plaintiff and approve lead plaintiff's choice of counsel. On December 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and on February 14, 2002, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On May 29, 2002, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On July 11, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and on March 23, 2002, the underwriter defendants and the individual defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On August 20, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting both motions to dismiss with leave to amend. On October 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against the underwriter defendants and the individual defendants. The plaintiffs later filed a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 15, 2004. On March 12, 2004, the underwriter defendants and the individual defendants both filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Corrected Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On August 5, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting in part and denying in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss, and granting the individual defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 5, 2005 Order. On September 12, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of the section 11 and section 15 claims, as asserted against defendant Ellen M. Hancock, and defendants' motion to dismiss said claims was denied. On March 23, 2006, the defendants filed a motion for lack of prosecution. Further, on March 30, 2006, an individual defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
In a press release dated June 15, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed class members who did not have remaining claims in a securities fraud class action. Further, the district court ruled that the lead plaintiff could not decline to answer discovery until another plaintiff intervened to seek appointment as class representative…. The district court dismissed all of the claims except for the §11 claims against the underwriter defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss certain class members who originally filed § § 10(b) and 20(a) claims, but did not have claims under § 11. Lead plaintiff must answer discovery. The district court ruled that the lead plaintiff may not refuse to answer discovery while waiting for another plaintiff to intervene as class representative. The district court dismissed the class members' who did not have § 11 claims. The district court denied dismissal of the lead plaintiff, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to decide whether he would serve as class representative and to answer discovery.
On August 16, 2006, the Court entered the Judgment in a Civil Case. According to the Judgment, Brodsky’s motion to intervene is hereby denied, The Fund’s motion to intervene is hereby denied, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted. On November 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 11, 2006, the defendants also filed Notices of Cross Appeals. The appeals are currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
According to a press release dated on July 16, 2008, a securities class action against former Web hosting firm Exodus Communications Inc. has been settled after seven years. Preliminary approval for the $5 million settlement was granted by Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in an order Wednesday. The parties drafted a stipulation of settlement on April 9, just days before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its order partially remanding the dismissed lawsuit back to the federal court. The case had been pending in the circuit court on appeal by the shareholders and on cross-appeal by an Exodus defendant when the parties agreed to enter into mediation.
On October 31, 2008, the Settlement Hearing was held before U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney. At the Hearing, Judge Chesney approved the Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds, approved the motion for award of attorney fees and expenses and issued the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The settlement is approved and the action dismissed with prejudice.
Defendant: Exodus Communications Inc.
Ticker Symbol: EXDS
Paul Ruthfield, et al. v. Exodus Communications, Inc., et al.
DOCKET #: 01-CV-2661
DATE FILED: 07/12/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/30/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/20/2001
1 Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial 07/12/2001
2 Declaration Of Ex Kano S. Sams II In Support Of: (1) Motion To Appoint Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., And William H. Friedman As Lead Plaintiff 09/10/2001
3 Notice Of Motion, Motion And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Appoint Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., And William H. Friedman 09/10/2001
4 Notice Of Motion, Motion And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Consolidate Related Actions 09/10/2001
5 Order Granting Motion To Appoint Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., And William H. Friedman As Lead Plaintiff Pursuant To Section 21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Choice Of Counsel 10/29/2001
In Re: Exodus Communications Inc. Securities Litigation
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/25/2001
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor, Weiss & Lurie (Los Angeles), CA 90024
310.208.2800 310.209-2348 · info@wllawca.com
1 Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws 12/13/2001
2 Defendants' Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 02/14/2002
3 Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss 04/05/2002
4 Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws 04/05/2002
5 Notice Of Errata Re Consolidated Class Action Complaint 04/05/2002
6 Order Denying Motion To Strike; Granting Motion To Dismiss; Vacating Hearing; Continuing Case Management Conference 05/28/2002
7 First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws 07/11/2002
8 Individual Defendants’ Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 10/23/2002
9 Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Underwriter Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan To Dismiss The First Amended Consolidated Complaint 10/23/2002
10 Underwriter Defendants’ Reply Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Their Motion To Dismiss The First Amended Consolidated Complaint 01/16/2003
11 Individual Defendants’ Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 01/16/2003
12 Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Underwriter Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan To Dismiss The Third Amended Consolidated Complaint 03/12/2004
13 US District Court Civil Docket 03/16/2004
14 Individual Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Oppositions To Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint 06/25/2004
15 Certificate Of Service 06/25/2004
16 Individual Defendants’ Supplemental Appendix Of Unpublished Authorities 06/25/2004
17 Supplemental Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Individual Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint 06/25/2004
18 Supplemental Request For Judicial Notice: Exhibit 57–59 06/25/2004
19 Supplemental Request For Judicial Notice: Exhibit 60–61 06/25/2004
20 Supplemental Request For Judicial Notice: Exhibit 62–63 06/25/2004
21 Individual Defendants’ Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint 06/25/2004
22 U.S. District Court Civil Docket 02/22/2005
23 Corrected Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws 04/29/2005
24 Individual Defendants' Supplemental Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected Third Amended Consolidated Complaint 05/06/2005
25 Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Underwriter Defendants' Motion To Dismiss; Granting Individual Defendants' Motion To Dismiss 08/05/2005
26 Plaintiffs’ Reply In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration 09/09/2005
27 Stipulation To Extend Time To Answer Corrected Third Amended Complaint; [Proposed] Order 09/12/2005
28 Order Denying Underwriter Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File Motion For Reconsideration, Motion For Extension Of Time To Answer, And Motion For Stay Of Discovery 09/12/2005
29 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion For Reconsideration 09/12/2005
30 Stipulation To Extend Time To Answer Corrected Third Amended Complaint; Order 09/13/2005
31 Clerk’s Notice Re: Failure To File Electronically And/Or Register As An E-Filer 09/16/2005
32 Stipulation To Extend Time To Answer Corrected Third Amended Complaint; [Proposed] Order 09/30/2005
33 Stipulation To Extend Time To Answer Corrected Third Amended Complaint; Order 10/03/2005
34 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Answer To Plaintiffs’ Corrected Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws 10/10/2005
35 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 10/10/2005
36 Answer Of Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan To Plaintiffs’ Corrected Third Amended Consolidated Complaint 10/11/2005
37 Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Defendants’ Motion For Certification 10/12/2005
38 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Notice Of Motion And Motion For: 1) Leave To File A Motion For Reconsideration; 2) Certification Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); And 3) A Stay Of Discovery Pending Appeal; And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 10/12/2005
39 Order Denying Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Leave To File Motion For Reconsideration, Or, In The Alternative, To Certify Issue For Interlocutory Appeal And To Stay Further Proceedings Pending Appeal 10/19/2005
40 Letter To The Honorable Maxine M . Chesney From John K. Grant 10/21/2005
41 Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Continuing Case Management Conference 10/21/2005
42 Stipulation And Order Continuing Case Management Conference 10/24/2005
43 Joint Case Management Statement And Proposed Order 12/30/2005
44 Civil Minutes 01/06/2006
45 Stipulation And Interim [Proposed] Order 03/15/2006
46 Stipulation And Interim Order 03/16/2006
47 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 03/23/2006
48 Declaration Of Dhaivat H. Shah In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., William Friedman, And Martin Fox, For Failure To Prosecute 03/23/2006
49 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., William Friedman, And Martin Fox, For Failure To Prosecute 03/23/2006
50 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Notice Of Motion And Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., William Friedman, And Martin Fox, For Failure To Prosecute 03/23/2006
51 Stipulation And Proposed Order Consolidating Hearing Dates 03/28/2006
52 Declaration Of Anil Shivdasani In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Summary Judgment 03/29/2006
53 Stipulation And Order Consolidating Hearing Dates 03/29/2006
54 Certificate Of Service on Law.Stanford.Edu 03/30/2006
55 Declaration Of Roberta L. Harting In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Summary Judgment 03/30/2006
56 [Proposed] Order Re Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 03/30/2006
57 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Notice Of Motion And Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 03/30/2006
58 Joinder By Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan In Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication 04/04/2006
59 Joinder By Defendants Goldman, Sachs &Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan In Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute 04/04/2006
60 Certificate of Service 04/13/2006
61 Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendant Hancock’s Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., William Friedman, And Martin Fox, For Failure To Prosecute 04/13/2006
62 Plaintiff Thomas Welch's Response To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 04/13/2006
63 Declaration Of Leigh A. Parker In Support Of Plaintiff Thomas Welch's Response To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 04/13/2006
64 [Proposed] Order Re: Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment , Or In The Alternative, Summary Ajudication 04/13/2006
65 Second Declaration Of Dhaivat H. Shah In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., William Friedman, And Martin Fox, And Motion For Summary Judgment 04/21/2006
66 Certificate Of Service On Law.Stanford.Edu 04/24/2006
67 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Involuntary Dismissal 04/24/2006
68 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 04/24/2006
69 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Request For Judicial Notice 04/24/2006
70 Declaration Of Robert Brown Pursuant To General Order 45 04/24/2006
71 [Proposed] Order Re Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Strike Portions Of Declaration Of Leigh A. Parker In Support Of Plaintiff Thomas Welch’s Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 04/24/2006
72 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Portions Of Declaration Of Leigh A. Parker In Support Of Plaintiff Thomas Welch’s Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities 04/24/2006
73 Order Granting Plaintiff Thomas Welch’s Motion For Rule 56(F) Continuance Of Hearing On Motion For Summary Judgment; Denying As Moot Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Strike; Vacating Hearing 04/28/2006
74 Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion For Involuntary Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Michael Klein, Teresi Trucking, Inc., William Friedman, And Martin Fox; Vacating Hearing 04/28/2006
75 Joint Case Management Statement And Proposed Order 04/28/2006
76 Clerk's Order 05/01/2006
77 Certificate Of Service 05/05/2006
78 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Motion And Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 05/05/2006
79 Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Motion And Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 05/05/2006
80 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Request For Entry Of Order Dismissing Named Plaintiff Martin Fox 05/09/2006
81 Order Dismissing Named Plaintiff Martin Fox 05/09/2006
82 [Proposed] Order Dismissing Named Plaintiff Martin Fox 05/09/2006
83 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 05/19/2006
84 Certificate Of Service 05/19/2006
85 Plaintiff Thomas Welch’s Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication [Pursuant To Order Dated April 28, 2006] 05/19/2006
86 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Request For Judicial Notice 05/19/2006
87 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 05/19/2006
88 Declaration Of Roberta L. Harting In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 05/19/2006
89 Supplemental Declaration Of Anil Shivdasani In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Summary Judgment 05/19/2006
90 [Proposed] Order Vacating Hearing On Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment 05/19/2006
91 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 05/19/2006
92 Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 05/19/2006
93 Certificate of Service 05/26/2006
94 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 05/26/2006
95 Joinder By Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan In Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication 05/26/2006
96 Joinder By Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan In Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 05/26/2006
97 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 05/26/2006
98 Reply Declaration Of Paul J. Collins In Support Of Underwriter Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 05/26/2006
99 Second Declaration Of Roberta L. Harting In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Her Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 05/26/2006
100 Declaration Of Leigh A. Parker In Support Of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 05/26/2006
101 Second Declaration Of Roberta L. Harting In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Her Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication 05/26/2006
102 Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 05/26/2006
103 Notice Of Continuance Of Hearing For Motion Of Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 06/01/2006
104 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Surreply To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 06/02/2006
105 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 06/02/2006
106 Declaration Of Roberta L. Harting In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Surreply To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 06/02/2006
107 [Proposed] Order Re Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Leave To File Surreply Regarding Brodsky’s Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 06/02/2006
108 Joint Case Management Statement And Proposed Order 06/02/2006
109 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment On Claims Asserted By Plaintiff Thomas Welch; Vacating Hearing 06/02/2006
110 Order Re Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Leave To File Surreply Regarding Brodsky’s Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 06/02/2006
111 Order Re Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Leave To File Surreply Regarding Brodsky’s Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 06/02/2006
112 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion For Leave To File Surreply Regarding Brodsky’s Motion To Add, Or In The Alternative, To Intervene, An Additional Named Plaintiff 06/02/2006
113 Order Continuing Case Management Conference 06/05/2006
114 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 06/09/2006
115 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 06/09/2006
116 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 06/09/2006
117 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 06/23/2006
118 Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 06/23/2006
119 Certificate Of Service On law.stanford.edu 06/23/2006
120 Declaration Of Roberta L. Harting In Support Of Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 06/23/2006
121 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 06/23/2006
122 [Proposed] Order Denying Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Dismiss 06/23/2006
123 Certificate of Service on law.stanford.edu 06/30/2006
124 Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Reply In Support Of Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 06/30/2006
125 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 06/30/2006
126 Joinder By Defendants Goldman, Sachs &Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan In Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Opposition To Motion For Order Allowing Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund To Intervene As A Plaintiff 07/13/2006
127 Joinder By Defendants Goldman, Sachs &Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, And J.P. Morgan In Defendant Ellen Hancock’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 07/13/2006
128 Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Continuing Case Management Conference 08/04/2006
129 Stipulation And Order Continuing Case Management Conference 08/07/2006
130 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss; Denying Ellen Brodsky’s Motion To Intervene; Denying Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund’s Motion To Intervene; Vacating Hearing 08/14/2006
131 Request For Entry Of Judgment 08/16/2006
132 Judgment in a Civil Case 08/16/2006
133 Declaration Of John K. Grant In Support Of Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 59(e) And 60 Filed On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And Movants Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund And Ellen Brodsky 08/30/2006
134 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 59(e) And 60 Filed On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And Movants Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund And Ellen Brodsky 08/30/2006
135 Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 59(e) And 60 Filed On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And Movants Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund And Ellen Brodsky 08/30/2006
136 Declaration Of Martin Fox In Support Of Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 59(e) And 60 Filed On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And Movants Boilmaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund And Ellen Brodsky 08/31/2006
137 Opposition To Motion To Vacate 10/06/2006
138 Underwriter Defendants’ Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Motion To Vacate The Judgment Pursuant To Rules 59(E) And 60 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 10/06/2006
139 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion To Vacate Judgment 10/06/2006
140 Movants’ Reply In Support Of Motion To Vacate Judgment Pursuant To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure 59(E) And 60 Filed On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And Movants Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Fund And Ellen Brodsky 10/13/2006
141 Order Denying Motion To Vacate Judgment; Vacating Hearing 10/26/2006
142 Proof Of Service By Federal Express 12/11/2006
143 Defendant Ellen M. Hancock's Notice Of Cross-Appeal And Ninth Circuit Rule 3-2 Representation Statement 12/11/2006
144 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
145 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
146 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
147 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
148 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
149 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
150 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
151 Substitution Of Attorney 11/15/2007
152 Stipulation of Settlement 04/18/2008
153 Amended Stipulation And Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice 07/15/2008
154 Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action 07/15/2008
155 Proof of Claim and Release 07/15/2008
156 Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Award Of Attorney Fees And Expenses And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 09/08/2008
157 Amended Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees And Expenses 10/31/2008
158 Amended Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice 10/31/2008
159 Revised Order Approving Plan Of Allocation Of Settlement Proceeds 10/31/2008
160 Order 11/25/2008
161 U.S. District Court Civil Docket 11/26/2008
1 Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws 07/16/2001
2 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 07/18/2001
3 Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws 07/24/2001
4 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 07/25/2001
5 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 07/26/2001
6 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 08/01/2001
7 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 08/15/2001
8 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 08/30/2001
9 Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws 08/31/2001
1 Order [from the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit] 04/29/2008