MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
- and -
REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
DAVID R. STICKNEY (188574)
222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: 415/288-4545
DYER DONNELLY
ROBERT J. DYER III
KIP B. SHUMAN
JEFFREY A. BERENS
801 East 17th Avenue
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: 303/861-3003
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.C.
STEVEN J. TOLL
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206/521-0080
[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MYRON GOLDSTEIN, On Behalf of )
No. C-99-1927-CW
Himself and All Others Similarly )
Situated,
) CLASS ACTION
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
SECURE COMPUTING CORP., et al., )
DATE: September 10, 1999
) TIME: 10:00 a.m.
Defendants. ) CTRM: The Honorable
__________________________________)
Claudia Wilken
THE GOLDSTEIN PLAINTIFFS GROUP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO
SECTION 21D(a)(3)(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND FOR APPROVAL OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF COUNSEL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
III. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Proposed Lead Plaintiff Is The Most Adequate Plaintiff
Under The Exchange Act
1. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Has The Largest Financial
Interest In The Related Actions
2. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Is Qualified Under Rule 23
a. The Claims Of The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Are Typical
Of The Claims Of The Class
b. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Will Fairly And Adequately Represent
The Interests Of The Class
B. This Court Should Approve The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group's Choice
Of Counsel
V. CONCLUSION
TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 10, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.,
or as soon thereafter as this motion may be heard before the Honorable
Claudia Wilken in Courtroom 2 of this Court, located on the fourth floor
at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, plaintiffs in the Goldstein Plaintiffs
Group, identified in Ex. B to the Declaration of Alison M. Tattersall in
Support of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group's (1) Motion to Be Appointed
Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel; and
(2) Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes Six Related Actions Against
Secure Computing Corporation ("Tattersall Decl."), filed herewith (collectively,
"Movants" or the "Goldstein Plaintiffs Group"), who purchased Secure Computing
Corporation's ("Secure Computing" or the "Company") securities between
November 10, 1998 and March 31, 1999 (the "Class Period"), will, and hereby
do, move this Court for an Order granting the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group's
Motion to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's
Choice of Co-Lead Counsel (the "Motion").(1)
This Motion is brought pursuant to §21D of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4, on the grounds that
Movants have timely filed and are the "most adequate plaintiffs." In addition,
Movants seek the Court's approval of their selection of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP ("Milberg Weiss"), Dyer Donnelly and Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. ("Cohen Milstein") as Co-Lead Counsel for
the class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).
This Motion is based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum
of Points and Authorities, the Tattersall Declaration, the pleadings and
other files and records in each of these actions and such other written
or oral arguments as may be permitted by the Court at the hearing on this
Motion.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Movants submit this memorandum in support of their motion for (1) the
appointment of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group as Lead Plaintiff; and (2)
the approval of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group's choice of counsel.
Section 21D of the Exchange Act establishes the procedure for the
selection of lead plaintiff in securities class actions. Specifically,
within 20 days after the filing of an action governed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat.
737 (1995) ("PSLRA"),
[T]he plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published,
in a widely circulated ss-oriented publication or wire service, a notice
advising members of the purported plaintiff class --
(I) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted
therein, and the purported class period; and
(II) that, nonational businet later than 60 days after the date
on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
Section §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act directs the Court
to consider any motions to serve as lead plaintiff by not later than 90
days after the date of publication or as soon as practicable after
the Court decides any pending motion to consolidate any actions asserting
substantially the same claim or claims.(2)
Under this provision of the Exchange Act, the Court "shall" appoint the
"most adequate plaintiff" to serve as lead plaintiff and shall presume
that plaintiff is the person, or group of persons, that:
(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in
response to a notice;
(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class; and
(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Here, the Goldstein Plaintiffs
Group constitutes class members who collectively purchased 227,410 shares
of Secure Computing common stock and 311 option contracts during the Class
Period, suffering $2,700,625.04 in losses. See Movants' Purchases,
Sales and Losses Chart, Tattersall Decl., Ex. B. By virtue of the Goldstein
Plaintiffs Group's collective losses, the Group believes that it has the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and is, therefore,
presumptively entitled to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Alternatively, if the
Court concludes that appointing a smaller group will ease case management,
all Movants support the appointment of Myron Goldstein, Paul Emmarco, Susan
Federgreen TTEE, Warren R. Federgreen MD PA Profit Sharing, Gary Glick,
Andrew Kaiser, Paul A. Jacobsen, Tom Tresnowski and Boote Feichtner as
Lead Plaintiff. These individual members of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group
collectively lost $1,000,946.25.
The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group also seeks the Court's approval of
Movants' choice of counsel. Movants have retained highly experienced and
nationally recognized law firms to zealously advance the interests of the
class in this litigation.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Presently pending in this District are six related securities
class action lawsuits:
Abbreviated Case Name
Case Number Date Filed
Goldstein v. Secure Computing Corp., et al.
C-99-20279-PVT 04/02/99
Plaintiff: Myron Goldstein ("Goldstein")
Silverberg v. Secure Computing Corp., et al.
C-99-1809-MMC 04/09/99
Plaintiff: Herbert Silverberg ("Silverberg")
Preiner v. Secure Computing Corp., et al.
C-99-1831-MMC 04/12/99
Plaintiff: William Preiner ("Preiner")
McInnis v. Secure Computing Corp., et al.
C-99-1873-JL 04/14/99
Plaintiff: Charles McInnis ("McInnis")
Freedenberg v. Secure Computing Corp., et al. C-99-1924-SBA
04/20/99
Plaintiff: Melvin Freedenberg ("Freedenberg")
Rosenquist v. Secure Computing Corp., et al.
C-99-20342-EAI 04/20/99
Plaintiff: George H. Rosenquist ("Rosenquist")
The above-listed actions allege claims for violations of the Exchange
Act (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) on behalf of purchasers of
Secure Computing's securities during the Class Period.(3)
On April 2, 1999, plaintiff filed the Goldstein action against
Secure Computing and certain of its executive officers. Also on April 2,
the Goldstein plaintiff published early notice to class members
on the PR Newswire, as required by Exchange Act §21D(a)(3)(A)(i).
Tattersall Decl., Ex. C. This notice advised purchasers of Secure Computing's
securities of the existence of the lawsuit and advised class members of
their right to move the Court for lead plaintiff appointment within 60
days.(4)
The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group has filed this Motion in a timely
manner (i.e., prior to the expiration of the 60-day period
from the publication of notice on April 2, 1999). Thus, pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B),
the Court shall decide this Motion within 90 days from the date of early
notice publication or as soon as possible after consolidating the six related
actions. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).(5)
In this case, the 90 days runs on July 1, 1999.
III. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
Plaintiffs in the six related actions seek redress for themselves and
for all others similarly situated for damages suffered due to defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.
Secure Computing is a publicly traded company that develops and
sells network security projects. ¶2.(6)
Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to a scheme to artificially inflate the
price of Secure Computing's securities, the Company and certain of its
executive officers issued false and misleading statements during the Class
Period about Secure Computing's business operations, earnings growth and
the Company's ability to continue to achieve profitable growth. ¶¶3,
5, 39-57. These statements drove Secure Computing's stock to a Class Period
high of $28 per share and enabled the Individual Defendants to pocket more
than $6 million in illegal insider trading proceeds.(7)
¶¶2, 58. On March 31, 1999, defendants finally revealed that
Secure Computing actually suffered from severe problems that adversely
affected its business. ¶54. The price of Secure Computing's common
stock dropped precipitously to as low as $5-9/16 per share. ¶56. Although
the Individual Defendants reaped millions of dollars in illegal insider
trading proceeds, investors who purchased Secure Computing's securities
at artificially inflated prices suffered substantial losses.(8)
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Proposed Lead Plaintiff Is The Most Adequate Plaintiff Under
The Exchange Act
1. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Has The Largest Financial Interest
In The Related Actions
The "most adequate plaintiff" provision of the PSLRA provides that
a court
shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members
of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable
of adequately representing the interests of class members (hereafter in
this paragraph referred to as the "most adequate plaintiff") in accordance
with this subparagraph.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) (emphasis added). The Exchange Act
requires the Court to adopt a rebuttable presumption
that the most adequate plaintiff in any private action
arising under this chapter is the person or group of persons that
--
* * *
(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class . . . .
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) (emphasis added).
Thus, the statutory language explicitly provides that a "member
or members" of the class or a "person or group of persons" may
combine to constitute "the largest financial interest" and thereby jointly
serve as the "most adequate plaintiff." Id. (emphasis added). According
to the statute's plain language, individual plaintiffs may aggregate their
losses in order to serve as the lead plaintiff.(9)
During the Class Period, the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group collectively
purchased 227,410 shares of Secure Computing stock and 311 option contracts
at prices artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading statements.
As a result, the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group collectively suffered losses
of over $2,700,625.04. See Movants' Purchases, Sales and Losses
Chart, Tattersall Decl., Ex. B.(10) The
Goldstein Plaintiffs Group believes it has the largest financial interest
in the outcome of this litigation and, therefore, is presumed to be the
most adequate plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(b).
In addition to having a very large financial stake in the litigation,
the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group is otherwise qualified to represent the
proposed class. Each member of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group has signed
and filed a sworn certification of his or her own review and authorization
of the Complaint and is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf
of the class. Tattersall Decl., Ex. A. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group also
has selected and retained counsel highly experienced in prosecuting securities
class actions to represent it. See the firm résumés of Milberg
Weiss, Dyer Donnelly and Cohen Milstein. Tattersall Decl., Ex. F. Accordingly,
Movants satisfy the prerequisite for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant
to §21D(a)(3)(B), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B).
2. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Is Qualified Under Rule 23
Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc),
provides that, in addition to possessing the largest financial interest
in the outcome of the litigation, the lead plaintiff or plaintiffs must
also "otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure." With respect to the qualifications of the class representative,
Rule 23(a) requires that the claims be typical of the claims of the class
and that the representative fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class.
As detailed below, each member of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group
satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a).
a. The Claims Of The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Are Typical Of The
Claims Of The Class
The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied when the named
plaintiffs have (1) suffered the same injuries as the absent class members;
(2) as a result of the same course of conduct by defendants; and (3) their
claims are based on the same legal issues. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,
976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992); Haley v. Medtronic, Inc., 169
F.R.D. 643, 649 (C.D. Cal. 1996); In re Cirrus Logic Sec. Litig.,
155 F.R.D. 654, 657 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Shields v. Smith, [1992 Transfer
Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶97,001, at 94,376 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
18, 1992); In re Activision Sec. Litig., 621 F. Supp. 415 (N.D.
Cal. 1985). Here, the same course of conduct caused the Movants to suffer
the same injuries as absent class members. The questions of law and fact
common to the members of the class include the following:
(a) Whether the federal securities laws were violated by defendants;
(b) Whether defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material facts;
(c) Whether defendants knew, had reason to know or recklessly disregarded
that their statements were false and misleading or failed to have a reasonable
basis for those statements;
(d) Whether the price of Secure Computing's securities were artificially
inflated during the Class Period; and
(e) The extent of damage sustained by class members and the appropriate
measure of damages.
There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of
law and fact involved in this case. Thus, the claims asserted by the Goldstein
Plaintiffs Group are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed
class. Each of the Movants alleges, as do the members of the class, that
defendants violated the Exchange Act by publicly disseminating a series
of false and misleading statements about Secure Computing during the Class
Period. Each of the Movants acquired Secure Computing securities at prices
inflated by defendants' misrepresentations and omissions and were damaged
thereby. Typicality exists here because the claims asserted by the Goldstein
Plaintiffs Group are based on the same legal theory and arise "from the
same event or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of other class
members." In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter
Inv. Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 251, 256 (C.D. Cal. 1988); accordBlackie
v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 902-03 & n.19 (9th Cir. 1975).
b. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group Will Fairly And Adequately Represent
The Interests Of The Class
The interests of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group are clearly aligned
with the members of the proposed class. There is no antagonism between
the interests of the individuals in the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group and
the proposed class members. As detailed above, the claims of the Goldstein
Plaintiffs Group share substantially similar questions of law and fact
with the members of the proposed class, and Movants' claims are typical
of the members of the class. The members of the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group
have amply demonstrated their adequacy as class representatives by signing
certifications, filed with the Court, affirming their willingness to serve
as class representatives. In addition, the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group has
selected counsel highly experienced in prosecuting securities class actions,
such as the present actions, to represent it.
B. This Court Should Approve The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group's Choice
Of Counsel
The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain
lead counsel, subject to court approval. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).
Thus, the Court should not disturb the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel
unless necessary to "protect the interests of the plaintiff class." 15
U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa).
Movants have selected the law firms of Milberg Weiss, Dyer Donnelly
and Cohen Milstein to serve as Co-Lead Counsel. These firms possess extensive
experience in the area of securities litigation and have successfully prosecuted
numerous securities fraud class actions on behalf of injured investors.
See
Tattersall Decl., Ex. F.
V. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group respectfully
requests that the Court (1) appoint the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group as Lead
Plaintiff;(11) and (2) approve Movants'
choice of Milberg Weiss, Dyer Donnelly and Cohen Milstein as Co-Lead Counsel
for the class.
DATED: June 1, 1999
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
WILLIAM S. LERACH
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
REED R. KATHREIN
ALISON M. TATTERSALL
DAVID R. STICKNEY
______________________________
ALISON M. TATTERSALL
222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: 415/288-4545
DYER DONNELLY
ROBERT J. DYER III
KIP B. SHUMAN
JEFFREY A. BERENS
801 East 17th Avenue
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: 303/861-3003
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.C.
STEVEN J. TOLL
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206/521-0080
[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
PRONGAY & BORDERUD
KEVIN M. PRONGAY
JON W. BORDERUD
12121 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: 310/207-2848
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
& HOLSTEIN, P.L.L.P.
RICHARD A. LOCKRIDGE
KAREN M. HANSON
100 Washington Avenue South
Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Telephone: 612/339-6900
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD
D. KRANICH
RICHARD D. KRANICH
120 Broadway, Suite 1016
New York, NY 10271-0074
Telephone: 212/608-8965
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC
DAVID R. SCOTT
NEIL ROTHSTEIN
108 Norwich Avenue
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: 860/537-3818
LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE G. MURPHY
BRUCE G. MURPHY
265 Llwyds Lane
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 561/231-4202
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK
HOWARD D. FINKELSTEIN
JEFFREY R. KRINSK
501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/238-1333
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 23-2(c)(2)
I, the undersigned, declare:
1. That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen
of the United States and a resident of the County of San Francisco, over
the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested in the within action;
that declarant's business address is 222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San
Francisco, California 94108.
2. That on June 1, 1999, declarant served the THE GOLDSTEIN PLAINTIFFS
GROUP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO SECTION
21D(a)(3)(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND FOR APPROVAL OF
LEAD PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF COUNSEL by depositing a true copy thereof in
a United States mailbox at San Francisco, California in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed
on the attached Service List and that this document was forwarded to the
following designated Internet site at:
http://securities.milberg.com
3. That there is a regular communication by mail between the place
of mailing and the places so addressed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed this 1st day of June, 1999, at San Francisco, California.
______________________________
DEBORAH R. DASH
1. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group consists of
Myron Goldstein, Paul Emmarco, Susan Federgreen TTEE, Warren R. Federgreen
MD PA Profit Sharing, Gary Glick, Andrew Kaiser, Paul A. Jacobsen, Tom
Tresnowski, Boote Feichtner and 185 other investors in Secure Computing's
securities who have executed certifications and consented to be lead plaintiffs.
See
Movants' signed certifications attached as Ex. A to the Tattersall Decl.
The PSLRA specifically authorizes class members, regardless of whether
they have filed a complaint, to move to be appointed as lead plaintiffs.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B). The Movants are more fully identified in
the chart entitled "Movants' Purchases, Sales and Losses," attached as
Ex. B to the Tattersall Decl.
2. The Goldstein Plaintiffs Group respectfully
refers the Court to its Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes Six Related
Actions Against Secure Computing Corporation ("Motion to Consolidate"),
filed herewith. See n.3, infra.
3. Filed concurrently with this motion is a Motion
to Consolidate. The PSLRA requires the Court to resolve the Motion to Consolidate
before resolving the present motion for lead plaintiff appointment. The
six related actions allege the same violative conduct by defendants to
artificially inflate the price of Secure Computing's securities by making
false and misleading statements about Secure Computing's business operations,
earnings growth and the Company's ability to continue to achieve profitable
growth.
4. Additional notices were published after the
April 2, 1999 notice. Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(ii) provides that if more than
one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claims
is filed, only plaintiffs in the first-filed action are required to publish
the notice, and the date for moving to serve as lead plaintiff is calculated
from the date of the first notice.
5. The 90-day period for the selection of lead
plaintiff is calculated from the date of the publication of the first notice.
As detailed above, the Goldstein Plaintiffs Group has, concurrent with
the filing of this motion, appropriately filed a Motion to Consolidate
the six related actions. Pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Exchange
Act, the Court is required to decide the consolidation motion prior
to making a determination on any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff.
6. Paragraph references are to the Goldstein
Complaint for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint"),
Tattersall Decl., Ex. D.
7. The "Individual Defendants" are Jeffrey H.
Waxman, Timothy P. McGurran, Patrick Regester, Gary D. Taggart, Howard
Smith and Christine Hughes.
8. Movants, in the interest of brevity, respectfully
refer the Court to the "Summary of Pending Actions" contained in the Goldstein
Plaintiffs Group's memoranda, filed concurrently herewith, in support of
its Motion to Consolidate the six related actions.
9. In re Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., Sec.
Litig., No. C-96-2644-SBA, Order re Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel, at 2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1997) (proposed lead plaintiffs
can pool together their shares to form the largest financial interest);
In
re Vivus, Inc. Sec. Litig., Master File No. C 98 1026 SBA, Order Appointing
Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel (N.D. Cal.
July 2, 1998) (same); City Nominees Ltd., et al. v. Macromedia, Inc.,
et al., No. C-97-3521 SC, Order Re Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff,
at 5-7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 1998) (same); In re Read-Rite Corp. Sec.
Litig., No. C-97-20059 RMW, Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 1997) (same);
Malin
v. IVAX Corp., et al., Case No. 96-1843-CIV-MORENO, Order Granting
Malin/Ferretti/Pennsylvania Pension Fund Plaintiffs Group's Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Order Approving Lead Plaintiffs' Choice
of Counsel, at 4-8 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 1996) (holding the plaintiff group
with the largest number of shares is the most adequate plaintiff under
the PSLRA);
Zuckerman, et al. v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., et al.,
No. 3:96-CV-2258-T, Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Motion and Granting
Joint Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, at 5
(N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1997) (11 individual plaintiffs with the largest financial
interest collectively appointed lead plaintiff); Chan, et al. v. Orthologic
Corp., et al., No. Civ. 96-1514 PHX RCB, Order, at 13 (D. Ariz. Dec.
19, 1996) (plaintiffs from five separate actions collectively appointed
lead plaintiff); Powers, et al. v. Eichen, et al., Civ. No. 96-1431-B(AJB),
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant
to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for Appointment
of Lead Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, at 1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 1996) (nine
individual plaintiffs collectively appointed lead plaintiff). Tattersall
Decl., Ex. E.
10. The chart provides details of each of the
Movants' transactions in Secure Computing securities during the Class Period,
including the losses suffered.
11. Alternatively, if the Court determines that
a smaller group will ease case management, all Movants support the appointment
of Myron Goldstein, Paul Emmarco, Susan Federgreen TTEE, Warren R. Federgreen
MD PA Profit Sharing, Gary Glick, Andrew Kaiser, Paul A. Jacobsen, Tom
Tresnowski and Boote Feichtner as Lead Plaintiff. These individuals collectively
lost $1,000,946.25.