Ferguson v. OppenheimerFunds, Inc. et al

Filing 70

AMENDED 69 ORDER APPOINTING PATTISON LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING PATTISON'S SELECTION OF LEAD AND LIAISON CLASS COUNSEL. The 56 Motion is GRANTED. Dr. Pattison is APPOINTED Lead Plaintiff for the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a )(3)(B). Dr. Pattisons selection of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel and The Shuman Law Firm as Liaison Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Class is APPROVED. The related and superseded Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel (Docs. 14 , 19 and 58 ) are DENIED as MOOT, by Judge John L. Kane on 09/29/2009. (wjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 09-cv-1186-JLK-KMT JULIAN FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OPPENHEIMERFUNDS, INC., et al., Defendants. AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING PATTISON LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING PATTISON'S SELECTION OF LEAD AND LIAISON CLASS COUNSEL Kane, J. Having considered the Motion of Dr. C. Phillip Pattison for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for approval of his selection of counsel, and given alternatemovant Julian Ferguson's concession that Dr. Pattison is the "most adequate" plaintiff representative within the meaning of the PSLRA and Mr. Ferguson's concomitant non-opposition to Dr. Pattison's Motion: 1. The Motion (Doc. 56) is GRANTED; 2. Dr. Pattison is APPOINTED Lead Plaintiff for the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)(3)(B); 3. Dr. Pattison's selection of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel and The Shuman Law Firm as Liaison Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Class is APPROVED. 4. The related and superseded Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel (Docs. 14, 19 and 58) are DENIED as MOOT. Dated: September 29, 2009 s/John L. Kane SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?