In re Charles Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation

Filing 515

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 23, 2010. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN RE: CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Cases. / No new briefs, please, but be prepared on the following at oral argument: 1. During the class period, was there any statement by defendants that failed to disclose the full amount invested in MBS? 2. 3. 4. Before the change, was MBS affirmatively represented to be an "industry"? What is the law whether fine print can cure otherwise misleading large print? If shareholders should have been allowed to vote on the change in industry definitions, why would subsequent purchasers be entitled to recover for not holding an earlier vote? 5. Since the change was disclosed, why didn't plaintiffs sue to insist on a vote back then? Why did they wait to see how the market would turn on MBS? 6. Given the large volume of the submissions, will counsel bring to the hearing an agreed-on set of documents limited to the key prospectuses, with all references to the MBS issue highlighted and tagged, the stack to be in chronological order. No. C 08-01510 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please, no more than six or seven key prospectuses (or the like). Time may be precious at the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2