Michael D. Braun (CSB #167416)
Steven B. Chroman (CSB #183037)
STULL, STULL & BRODY
10940 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90024
(310) 209-2468

Jules Brody
Aaron L. Brody
STULL STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 687-7230

Kevin J. Yourman (147159)
WEISS & YOURMAN
10940 Wilshire Boulevard
24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
(310) 208-2800

Attorneys for Bisson Group

I. INTRODUCTION

II. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

IV. THE BISSON GROUP ARE THE MOST ADEQUATE PLAINTIFFS UNDER §21D OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFFS

1. The Bisson Group Makes This Motion Within 60 Days Of Publication Of Notice

2. The Bisson Group Has The Largest Financial Interest In the Relief Sought

3. The Bisson Group Otherwise Satisfy The Requirements of Rule 23

4. The Presumption In Favor of The Bisson Group Has Not Been Rebutted

V. THIS COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE BISSON GROUP'S CHOICE OF LEAD COUNSEL

VI. THE COURT SHOULD CONSOLIDATE THE RELATED ACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF EFFICIENCY AND JUDICIAL ECONOMY

VII. SECTION 21D OF THE EXCHANGE ACT REQUIRES THAT CONSOLIDATION BE DECIDED PRIOR TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS

VIII. CONCLUSION

In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig.,
416 F. Supp. 161, 176 (C.D. Cal 1976)

Greebel v. FTP Software,
939 F. Supp. 57, 60 (D. Mass. 1996)

In re Ramtek Sec. Litig.,
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) �95,814 (N.D. Cal. 1991)

In re Unioil Securities Litigation,
107 F.R.D. 615, 620 (C.D. Cal. 1985)

In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec. Litigation,
122 F.R.D. 251, 257 (C.D. Cal. 1988)

Yamner v. Boich,
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98,427 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

Chan v. Orthologic Corp.,
No. Civ. 96-1514 PHX RCB, slip op. at 13 (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 1996)

In re Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
No. C-96-2644-SBA, slip op. at 2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1997)

Malin v. IVAC Corporation, et al.,
No. 96-1843-CIV-Moreno, slip op. at 4-8 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 1996)

Powers v. Eichen,
Civ. No. 96-1431-B(AJB), Order at 1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 1996)

In re Read-Rite Corp. Sec. Litig.,
No. C-97-20059-RMW, slip op. at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 1997)

Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp.,
No. 3:96-CV-2258-T, slip op. at 5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1997)

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs George A. Bisson and Jay C. Bisson, ("hereinafter "Bisson") along with other class members (hereinafter "The Bisson Group")¹ respectfully submit their memorandum in support of their motion for: (i) the appointment of The Bisson Group as Lead Plaintiff in this action; (ii) the approval of Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman as the Bisson Group's choice of Co-Lead Counsel in this action; and (iii) the consolidation of all other related actions to this case. The combined financial interest of The Bisson Group is no less than $634,822.22 in losses.

The Private Securities Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), which amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by adding §21D (codified at 15 U.S.C. §78u-4), establishes a procedure for the appointment of lead plaintiffs in private securities class actions filed after December 22, 1995. Section 21D provides, in relevant part, that within 60 days after publication of a notice advising class members of the pendency of a securities class action, any class member may move the Court to be appointed lead plaintiff of the purported class.²

Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act further provides that the Court shall consider any motion by a purported class member to be appointed lead plaintiff "not later than 90 days after the date on which a notice is published," or as soon as practicable after the Court decides any pending motion to consolidate any actions asserting substantially the same claim or claims, and that the 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...".³ 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B).

Having filed the instant motion within the 60-day period prescribed by §21D, The Bisson Group now request that they be appointed Lead Plaintiffs, that the Court approve their selection of Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman as Co-Lead Counsel for the purported class and that the Court consolidate all related cases with this action pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

II. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

The matter herein is a securities class action filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Smart Modular Technologies, Inc. ("SMT" or the "Company") securities between July 1, 1997 and May 22, 1998, inclusive (the "Class Period") and who sustained damages thereby. The Bisson Group seeks to recover damages caused by defendants'⁴ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Smart Modular is a manufacturer of components for PCS, including standard and specialty memory modules, which provide for the customization of memory in a computer.

In November of 1995, Smart Module went public. Within two years, Smart Module insiders realized that their growth was slowing, pricing for their modules was weakening and their expansion into Europe was costing more than anticipated. The insiders knew that if this information became public, the stock would decline. To stave off such a decline, Smart Module set out to have a second offering, worth millions of shares, in which the insiders would sell shares after the "Road Show" presentation purposefully calculated to inflate prices and thus stocks value. Beginning in July of 1997, in order to accomplish their goals, Smart Modular, aided by select underwriters, mounted a publicity campaign, which provided the means to disseminate false, but favorable information concerning Smart Modular. Publicly, the defendants stated that the company would continue to grow, demand was accelerating, decreasing component pricing would help the business and the European market demand was robust. These false and misleading representations had the desired effect. Within two months, the company completed the offering, raising more than $90 million dollars. Moreover. the stock price rose to $44.5/8 per share. During this time Smart Modular insiders sold shares worth $62.8 million dollars.

Ironically, shortly after this second offering, Smart Modular stock fell sharply shortly after this second offering to 17 1/2, which prompted defendants to once again launch a fraudulent and misleading campaign to raise the stock price. As before, the stock price began to rise reaching $34 1/16 by late November 1997. At this highmark, insiders, once again sold large quantities of shares resulting in over $4 million dollars of insider trading proceeds.

Smart Modular's facade and success came down on February 19, 1998, with the announcement that its 2nd Quarter Fiscal 98 results would be lower than expected. On May 20, 1998, after the close of trading, Smart Modular revealed the truth about its business prospects, stating that: (a) expected revenues would decline sharply for Fiscal 1998; (b) there was continuing production problems; and (c) the company suffered from an excessive inventory. The revelation of this information devalued Smart Modular stock from $22 1/4 to $12 1/8, a 41% drop.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action, George A. Bisson and Jay C. Bisson v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No: C 98 20714 JF (the "Bisson Complaint") was filed on July 8, 1998. The first filed related action was Boren v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., et al., 98 CV 20692. Pursuant to §21D(a)(3), notice of the pendency of the Boren action (the "Notice") was timely published and disseminated over the Business Wire on the July 1, 1998.⁵ The Notice advised all purchasers of Smart Modular Technologies, Inc. securities during the Class Period of: 1) the pendency of the action; 2) the claims asserted in the Complaint; 3) the purported Class Period; and 4) the fact that, no later than sixty (60) days from the date the Notice was published, any member of the purported Class may move this Court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Presently pending in this District are six related securities action lawsuits:

On July 28, 1998 plaintiff Bisson filed his Notice of Related Cases.⁶

IV. THE BISSON GROUP ARE THE MOST ADEQUATE PLAINTIFFS UNDER §21D OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFFS

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Securities Exchange Act establishes a rebuttable presumption that the "most adequate plaintiff" for purposes of appointment as lead plaintiff is the person or group of persons that:

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i);

(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).

Thus, 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.; See In re Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-96-2644-SBA, slip op. at 2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1997) (proposed Lead Plaintiffs can pool together their shares to form the largest financial interest) (See Chroman Decl., Exhibit D).⁷

1. The Bisson Group Makes This Motion Within 60 Days Of Publication Of Notice

Members of The Bisson Group have reviewed plaintiff Bisson's Complaint, as set forth in their certifications, attached to the Chroman Decl. as Exhibit J, and bring this motion within 60 days of publication of plaintiff Boren's Notice.

2. The Bisson Group Has The Largest Financial Interest In the Relief Sought

The chart attached as Exhibit A to the Chroman Decl. provides the names of all members of The Bisson Group, lists their purchases of Smart Modular, and itemizes each individual's losses (or gains). This information was compiled from each of the certificates attached as Exhibit J to the Chroman Decl. As the chart indicates, The Bisson Group purchased a cumulative total of 90,548 of Smart Modular Technology securities during the Class Period and have sustained at least $728,877.85 in damages.⁸ To the best of The Bisson Group's knowledge, The Bisson Group have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class, and should therefore be appointed Lead Plaintiffs in this matter. Section 21D(a)(3)(B); 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B); Greebel, 939 F. Supp. at 64.

3. The Bisson Group Otherwise Satisfy The Requirements of Rule 23

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(cc) of the Exchange Act further provides that the lead plaintiff or plaintiffs must "otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(cc). Rule 23(a) provides that a party may serve as a class representative if the following four requirements are satisfied:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Plaintiffs George and Jay Bisson have alleged that "the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable" and that "plaintiffs believe that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the Class" (Complaint ¶35),⁹ that "plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all members of the Class are similarly affected by defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of the federal law that is complained of herein" (Complaint ¶36), that "[p]laintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation" (Complaint ¶37), that "[c]ommon questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the Class." (Complaint ¶38) and that "a class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this class action." (Complaint ¶41).

These allegations, which may be accepted as true for the purposes of this Motion,¹⁰ satisfy The Bisson Group's burden of a prima facie showing, again for the purposes of this Motion, that the Rule 23 requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority of a class action are satisfied. (This conclusion is without prejudice to defendants' contesting class certification.) See also Greebel, 939 F. Supp. at 64.

Moreover, of the four prerequisites of class certification under Rule 23(a), only two -- adequacy of representation and typicality -- directly address the personal characteristics of the class representative/lead plaintiff, and are the only Rule 23 prerequisites, if any, the Court should focus on in appointing lead plaintiffs.

The adequacy requirement is met when plaintiffs interests are not antagonistic to the interests of the members of the proposed class, and plaintiff's attorneys are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation. See, e.g., Yamner v. Boich, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P98,427 (N.D. Cal. 1994); In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec. Litigation, 122 F.R.D. 251, 257 (C.D. Cal. 1988). There has been no showing that The Bisson Group have any fundamental conflicts with other class members. In addition, The Bisson Group have retained highly competent and experienced counsel in this action. Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman are well known securities practitioners who have been adjudged adequate class counsel in numerous class actions and are capable of prosecuting this litigation. A copy of Stull Stull & Brody's and Weiss & Yourman's resumes are attached to the Chroman Decl. as Exhibits K and L, respectively.

Furthermore, The Bisson Group have already demonstrated their adequacy and willingness to accept their duties as Class representatives, to serve as advocates on behalf of the Class and to prosecute this action. The Bisson Group have stated in their certifications, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(2), that they are "willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the class set forth in the Complaint, including providing testimony at deposition and trial." See Certifications of The Bisson Group attached to the Chroman Decl. as Exhibit J.

The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied when the named plaintiffs have: 1) suffered the same or similar injuries as the absent class members; 2) the injuries result from the same course of conduct by defendants; and, 3) the claims are based on the same legal theories. See In re Unioil Securities Litigation, 107 F.R.D. 615, 620 (C.D. Cal. 1985).

The Bisson Group satisfy the typicality requirement for the following reasons. Each Movant purchased or acquired Smart Modular Technology securities during the Class Period and the Bisson Complaint asserts claims on behalf of all Class members purchasing Smart Modular Technology securities within the prescribed Class Period. Similarly, each member of The Bisson Group and the Class, moreover, have been similarly damaged by defendants' violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

4. The Presumption In Favor of The Bisson Group Has Not Been Rebutted

The presumption in favor of appointing The Bisson Group as Lead Plaintiffs may be rebutted only upon proof "by a member of the purported plaintiffs' class" that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff --

(aa) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or

(bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

There has been no showing by any other purported lead plaintiff that The Bisson Group will not adequately protect the interests of the Class or that any of them is subject to any unique defense that renders them incapable of representing the Class. Accordingly, The Bisson Group should be appointed Lead Plaintiffs in this matter.

V. THIS COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE BISSON GROUP'S CHOICE OF LEAD COUNSEL

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v), provides that "the most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the Court, select and retain counsel to represent the class." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4 (a)(3)(B)(v). The Bisson Group have selected and retained Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman to represent the Class as Co-Lead Counsel.

The attorneys at Stull Stull & Brody with primary responsibility for prosecuting this action are Michael D. Braun and Steven B. Chroman. The attorney at Weiss & Yourman with primary responsibility for prosecuting this action is Kevin J. Yourman. The attorneys at Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman have extensive experience in the area of securities class action litigation and, as detailed in the firms' resumes attached as Exhibits K and L to the Chroman Decl., Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman have successfully prosecuted countless securities class actions on behalf of injured investors. Consequently, this Court may be assured that the members of the Class will receive the highest quality of legal representation

VI. THE COURT SHOULD CONSOLIDATE THE RELATED ACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF EFFICIENCY AND JUDICIAL ECONOMY

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Currently pending in this District are five related class action lawsuits to the Bisson Complaint which have been filed against essentially the same defendants. The Bisson Group believe consolidation of the five actions with the Bisson Complaint, is appropriate since all six actions involve common questions of law and fact and allege the same or similar claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of the same or similar plaintiff class. In addition, all six actions will involve similar issues regarding class certification, and will undoubtedly involve identical discovery. There is also no reason to believe that defendants would not support consolidation of these six actions, as well as any subsequent filed related actions. Accordingly, these actions should be consolidated in the interests of judicial economy and overall efficiency. The Bisson Group respectfully request consolidation for all purposes of all cases to be related to the Bisson Complaint pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig., 416 F. Supp. 161, 176 (C.D. Cal 1976) (noting that class action suits are ideally suited to consolidation since their unification expedites pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication, avoids the contacting of parties and witness for inquiries in multiple proceedings, and minimizes the expenditure of time and money by all persons concerned).

VII. SECTION 21D OF THE EXCHANGE ACT REQUIRES THAT CONSOLIDATION BE DECIDED PRIOR TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act addresses the issue of consolidation of similar actions filed under the PSLRA as follows:

If more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this title has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes of for trial, the court shall not make the determination [of appointment of lead plaintiff under §21D(a)(3)(B)(i)] until after the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii).

Therefore, cases that are subject to Section 21D of the Exchange Act must undergo a two step process in determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel status when consolidation is an issue. First, the Court shall rule on the consolidation issue. Second, after any consolidation issues have been resolved, the Court may then rule on the lead plaintiff and lead counsel issues as soon as practicable. Id.

The Bisson Group would urge the Court to resolve the consolidation of these actions as soon as possible so that the Court may then rule on the determination of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this matter. Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a timely determination pertaining to consolidation is reasonable and will ultimately benefit the class members' interest in the prompt prosecution of their claims.

VIII. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Bisson Group respectfully request that this Court appoint the Bisson Group as Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the 1934 Act, approve their choice of Stull Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman as Co-Lead Counsel to the Class pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the 1934 Act and consolidate all related actions with the above captioned case pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

¹ The "Bisson Group" consists of George A. Bisson, Jay C. Bisson and additional purchasers of Smart Modular Technologies, Inc. common stock which are listed in Exhibit A to the "Declaration of Steven B. Chroman in Support of The Bisson Group's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel and for Consolidation of All Related Actions" (the "Chroman Decl.").

² Section 21D(a)(3) states:

(A) Early notice to class members.

(i) In general. Not later than 20 days after the date on which the Complaint is filed, the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported class -- (ii) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein and the purported class period; and (iii) that, not 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.

³ The Bisson Group will also file, by separate motion, a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The requirements for appointment of lead plaintiff and for class certification overlap to some extent, particularly regarding the qualifications of the lead plaintiff/class representative. A key distinction, however, is that the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff may not be challenged by defendants. Only another "member of the purported plaintiff class" may oppose the application to be appointed lead plaintiff. Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); 15 U.S.C. '78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). See Greebel v. FTP Software, 939 F. Supp. 57, 60 (D. Mass. 1996) (the text of '21D "clearly indicates that this issue [of appointment of lead plaintiff] is one over which only potential plaintiffs may be heard"). Moreover, the court's inquiry in ruling on a motion for lead plaintiff is limited to the requirements of Section 21D and is a separate inquiry from class certification. As the court noted in Greebel, "Though neither the text of the PSLRA nor its legislative history explicitly describe the relationship between motions for lead plaintiff and motions for class certification, it seems clear that Congress recognized that these motions involved distinct inquiries. Section 21D(a)(3)(B) refers throughout its text to 'purported class members.' Congress implicitly understood, therefore, that lead plaintiff motions would be decided prior to consideration of certification issues." Id.

⁴ Defendants include Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., Mukesh Parel, Ajay Shaw, Lata Kirshan, Alan Martin, and David Mullin.

⁵ A copy of the Notice is attached as Exhibit B to the Chroman Decl.

⁶ A copy of plaintiff's Notice is attached as Exhibit C to the Chroman Decl.

⁷ See also In re Read-Rite Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C-97-20059-RMW, slip op. at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 1997) (same); Malin v. IVAC Corporation, et al., No. 96-1843-CIV-Moreno, slip op. 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 v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., No. 3:96-CV-2258-T, slip op. at 5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1997) (eleven individual plaintiffs with the largest financial interest collectively appointed lead plaintiff); Chan v. Orthologic Corp., No. Civ. 96-1514 PHX RCB, slip op. at 13 (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 1996) (plaintiffs from five separate actions collectively appoint lead plaintiff); Powers v. Eichen, Civ. No. 96-1431-B(AJB), Order at 1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 1996) (nine individual plaintiffs collectively appointed lead plaintiff). See Chroman Decl., Exhibits E-I., respectively.

⁸ Pursuant to Section 21D(e)(1) of the 1934 Act, the calculated damages for plaintiffs holding their shares through the end of the class period is "the difference between the purchase or sale price paid or received . . . and the mean trading price of [SMT stock] during the 90 day period beginning on the date on which the information correcting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market." 15 U.S.C. '78u-4(e)(1). For the purposes of calculating damages in the case at bar, the 90 day period began on May 23, 1998 and would end on August 21, 1998. The Bisson Group have calculated a "mean" of $15.34 which is an average trading price of Smart Modular Technology stock beginning on May 23, 1998, up to and including August 21, 1998.

⁹ All "Complaint ¶__" references are to the Bisson Complaint.

¹⁰ For purposes of class certification, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. See, e.g., In re Ramtek Sec. Litig., Fed Sec. L. Rep (CCH) ¶95,814 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (citing Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F. 2d 891, 901 n. 17 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976)). Presumably, this same rule applies to motions for lead plaintiff, which are to be determined at the pleading stage and prior to class certification.