In re Comdisco Securities Litigation

Full title: In re COMDISCO SECURITIES LITIGATION

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 12, 2001

Nos. 01 C 2110, 01 C 2438, 01 C 2492 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2001)

Opinion

Nos. 01 C 2110, 01 C 2438, 01 C 2492

April 12, 2001

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Judge

On April 9, 2001 Michael Ostertag ("Ostertag") filed putative class action Case No. 01 C 2438, and on April 10, 2001 Earl and Marion Horkins (collectively "Horkinses") filed putative class action Case No. 01 C 2492, each action being brought against the identical defendants who have been named in the numerous complaints that have now been subsumed under Case No. 01 C 2110. For that reason, and because the proposed Class Period in Ostertag's and Horkinses' cases is also identical to the Class Period specified in all of those actions (other than Case No. 01 C 1177), both of the new actions have now been reassigned to this Court's calendar on grounds of relatedness. In the same fashion as has been provided as to those earlier actions (except for Case No. 01 C 1177) in this Court's April 6, 2001 memorandum order, Case Nos. 01 C 2438 and 01 C 2492 are dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal is expressly conditioned upon the following further orders, all of which shall remain in effect pending further order of this Court:

1. Ostertag and Horkinses are made additional plaintiffs in Case No. 01 C 874, as prospective class representatives on behalf of the putative class identified there.

2. Ostertag's and Horkinses' counsel are made additional plaintiffs' counsel in Case No. 01 C 874, to continue to serve as counsel for their respective clients as prospective class representatives.

3. Until such time as this Court may determine the member or members of the putative plaintiff class who is or are "most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members," Ostertag and Horkinses and their respective counsel shall continue to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court's March 26 memorandum order in these actions.

No finding or holding is made or implied here as to the qualifications or lack of qualifications (a) of Ostertag or Horkinses to meet the statutory "most adequate plaintiff" standard or (b) of their respective counsel to act as class counsel.