Backhaus, et al. v. Superconductor Technologies, …securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1030/SCON04-01/...14 (2) Goldfine v. Superconductor Technologies, Inc., et al. CaseNo

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:04-cv-02680-DT-JTL Document 14 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 1 of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC A. BACKHAUS on Behalf ofHimself and All Others SimilarlySituated,

Plaintiff

I vs.

SUPERCONDUCTORTECHNOLOGIES, INC. M. PETERTHOMAS and MARTIN' S.McDERMUT,

PrioritySendEnterClosedJS-5/JS-6JS-2/JS-3Scan Only_._.w„

CASE NO. CV 04-2680 DT (JTLx)

ORDER GRANTING THEJAKUBOWITZ GROUP'S MOTIONTO CONSOLIDATE THE RELATEDACTIONS • FOR APPOINTMENT OFLEAD PLAINTIFF; AND FORAPPROVAL OF ITS CHOICE OFCOUNSEL AS LEAD AND LIAISONCOUNSEL FOR THE CLASS

Defendants.

Background

A. Factual Summary

This is a federal class action brought by Marc A. Backhaus on behalf

of himself and all purchasers of the common stock of Superconductor

Technologies, Inc. ("STI" or the "Company") against Defendants SuperConductor

Technologies, Inc., M. Peter Thomas, and Martin S. McDermut, seeking to pursue

remedies under the Securities Exchange Act

Action Complaint, ^ 1.

f 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Class

DOCKETED ON CM

AUG - 6

a' 02

FILEDCLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

rAUG - 2 20U4

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIABY DEPUTY

I Case 2:04-cv-02680-DT-JTL Document 14 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 2 of

1 Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule

2 of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class, consisting of all those

3 who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of STI between January 9,

4 2004 and March 1, 2004, inclusive , and who were damaged thereby ("Class"). Id.

5 at ¶ 17. Excluded from the Class are the Company , the officers and directors of

6 the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives,

7 heirs , successors or assigns and any entity in which the Company has or had a

8 controlling interest. Id.

9 The following facts are alleged in the Class Action Complaint:

10 STI describes itself as the global leader in developing , manufacturing,

11 and marketing superconducting products for wireless networks . Id. at ¶ 23. Its

12 flagship product, SuperLink' Rx, incorporates patented high-temperature

13 superconductor technology to create a cryogenic receiver front-end used by

14 wireless operators to enhance network performance, reduce costs, increase

15 capacity utilization , lower dropped and blocked calls, extend coverage, and enable

16 higher wireless transmission data rates. Id.

17 On January 9, 2004, STI announced that it had filed a Form S-3 shelf

18 registration statement with the SEC. Id. at ¶ 24. In its press release announcing

1 9 the filing of the S-3, Defendant Thomas stated , "STI has been growing rapidly.

20 We want to make sure we have access to any financing we may need to fund

21 continued growth." Id.

22 On February 4, 2004 , STI issued a press release entitled

23 "Superconductor Technologies Announces Preliminary Results for 2003" which

24 announced preliminary unaudited financial results for the fourth quarter and year

2-5 ended December 2003 of total net revenue for the quarter of $16.4 million, and

26 total net revenues for the year of $49 . 4 million . Id. at ¶ 25 . STI also declared that

27

28 2


1 it expected to announce that the fourth quarter of 2003 was profitable, the first

2 profitable quarter the Company had ever experienced. Id.

3 On March 1, 2004, STI issued a press release entitled

4 "Superconductor Technologies, Inc. Announces Fourth Quarter and Year-End

5 2003 Results" in which the expected quarterly and year-end results announced in

6 the February 4, 2004 press release were affirmed. Id. at ¶ 26. The press release

7 also included the following First Quarter 2004 financial guidance: "STI expects

8 first quarter 2004 total net revenues of $4 million. Thomas stated, `We currently

9 anticipate lower than previously forecasted revenues and a net loss in the first

lo quarter of 2004. "' Id. As a result of the lower than expected revenues, the stock

11 price for STI plummeted 45% from $4.09 to $2.26 per share in trading more than

12 seven times the daily average. Id. at ¶ 27.

13 The statements made by STI in its press releases were materially

14 false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the

15 following material adverse acts which were known to Defendants or recklessly

16 disregarded by them: (1) that STI was not experiencing rapid growth because two

17 of its important customers had either frozen capital spending or were focusing all

18 corporate resources and efforts into projects which did not utilize STI products

19 such that STI was experiencing a decreased demand for its products; (2) that STI

2o had not created any new business or obtained new customers during this time; and

21 (3) that STI knew that it could not realize revenues of $10-13 million for the first

22 quarter of 2004. Id. at ¶ 29.

23 On March 11, 2004, STI filed its Form 10-K for the year ended

24 December 31, 2003 with the SEC. Id. at ¶ 30. The Company stated that one of its

25 major customers was being acquired and another major company had decided to

26 greatly accelerate its project to roll out third generation technology which delayed

27

28 3

w


1 projects that utilized STI's products. Id. The first customer was AT&T WirelessL-j

2 and the latter was Verizon Wireless. Id. at ¶ 31. Defendants knew, or should have

3 known that the AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless announcements would have

4 a negative impact on STI's revenues, and yet Defendants represented to the

s investing public that STI would achieve revenues of $10-13 million for the first

6 quarter of 2004, knowing that this figure was unattainable. Id. at ¶ 34.

7 1. Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5

8 Promulgated Thereunder

9 During the Class Period, STI and the Individual Defendants carried

lo out a plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and, throughout

ii the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other

12 Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market

13 price of STI's securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class

14 to purchase STI's securities at artificially inflated prices. Id. at ¶ 4

15 Defendants named in the Claim: (i) employed devices, schemes, and

16 artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to

17 state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and (iii)

18 engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and

19 deceit upon purchasers of the Company's securities in an effort to maintain

2o artificially high market prices for STI's securities in violation of Section 10(b) of

21 the Exchange Act and Rule 1 Ob-5. Id. at ¶ 42.

22 Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions were done

23 knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and effect of concealing STI's

24 operating condition and future business prospects from the investing public and

25 supporting the artificially inflated price of its securities. Id. at ¶ 46.

26

27

28 4


1 By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants named in the Claim have

2 violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 1 Ob-5 promulgated

3 thereunder. Id. at ¶ 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful

4 conduct, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class suffered damages in

5 connection with their respective purchases and sales of the Company's securities

6 during the Class Period. Id. at ¶ 50.

7 2. Violation of Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act

8 The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of STI within

9 the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Id. at ¶ 52. By virtue of their

lo high-level positions, and their ownership and contractual rights, participation in,

11 knowledge and/or awareness of the Company's operations and/or intimate

12 knowledge of the false financial statements filed by the Company with the SEC

13 and disseminated to the public, the Individual Defendants had the power to

14 influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the

15 decision-making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the

16 various statements which Plaintiffs contend are false and misleading. - Id. at ¶ 52.

17 In particular, each of these Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in

18 the day-to-day operations of the Company and, therefore, is presumed to have had

19 the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the

20 securities violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same. Id. at ¶ 53.

21 STI and the Individual Defendants each violated Section 10(b) and

22 Rule lOb-5 by their acts and omissions as alleged in this Complaint. Id. at ¶ 54.

23 By virtue of their positions as controlling persons, the Individual Defendants are

24 liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Id. As a direct and

25 proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and other members

26

27

28 5

cLU-_s

n


1 of the Class suffered damages in connection with their purchases of the

2 Company ' s preferred securities during the Class Period. Id. at ¶ 54.

3 Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action. The members of the

4 Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Id. at ¶ 18.

5 While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time

6 and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that

7 there are hundreds or thousands ofmembers in the proposed Class. Id. Common

8 questions of law and fact exist at to all members of the Class and predominate

9 over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the

lo questions of law and fact common to the Class are:

11 (a) whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public

12 during the Class Period misrepresented or omitted material facts

13 about the business , operations and management of STI;

14 (b) whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants' acts

is as alleged herein and harmed the members of the Class; and

16 (c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and

17 the proper measure of damages.

18 Id. at ¶ 21.

19 Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on

20 the integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for STI publicly

21 traded securities . Id. at ¶ 47. Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased

22 STI public traded securities at the prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware

23 that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants'

24 misleading statements . Id. at ¶ 48.

25 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: declaring this action to be a

26 proper class action ; awarding compensatory damages, including interest ; awarding

27

28 6

Dl r..,


1 reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action; and such other relief as the

2 Court may deem proper. Id. at p.16.

3 B. Procedural Summary

4 On April 16, 2004, Plaintiffs filed the Demand for Jury Trial and the

5 Class Action Complaint.

6 On June 15, 2004, Plaintiffs Marc Backhaus and Jay Jakubowitz filed

7 The Jakubowitz Group's Notice of Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points

8 and Authorities in Support of Motion to Consolidate the Related Actions; For

9 Appointment of Lead Plaintiff; and For Approval of Its Choice of Counsel as Lead

lo and LIAISON Counsel For the Class, which is currently before the Court.

11 On June 28, 2004, Defendants filed a Notice of Interested Parties.

12 On June 29, 2004, Defendants filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order

13 Enlarging Time to Respond to Complaint and Withdrawing Order to Show Cause.

14 On July 12, 2004, Defendants filed their Statement of Non-

15 Opposition to Motion to Consolidate.

16 II. Motion to Consolidate Related Cases

17 A. Standard

18 Consolidation is controlled by Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of

19 Civil Procedure' and is proper when the actions involve common questions of law

2o and fact. Yousefi v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1064 (C.D. Cal.

21 1999); Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. , 79 F. Supp. 1146, 1150 (N.D. Cal.

22

23 1 FRCP 42(a) permits the consolidation of separate actions:

24 When actions involving a common question of law or fact are

25 pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or

all matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions26 consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings

27 therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

28 7


1 1999); In re Equity Funding CoM . of Am. Sec. Liti ., 416 F. Supp. 161, 175 (C.D.

2 Cal. 1976). The Court has broad discretion under Rule 42(a) to consolidate cases

3 pending within its District. Investors Research Co. v. United States District Court ,

4 877 F.2d 777 (9t' Cir. 1989). Class action shareholder suits are ideal for

5 consolidation because expediting the proceedings reduces duplication and

6 minimizes the expenditure of resources. In re Equity Funding , 416 F. Supp. at

7 176.

8 B. Analysis

9 Three cases have been filed alleging claims for violations of sections

10 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule I Ob-5 promulgated thereunder, on

11 behalf of investors who purchased Superconductor common stock. All three cases

12 were assigned to this Court. They are as follows:

13 (1) Backhaus v. Superconductor Technologies. Inc. et al. Case No. CV 04-02680

14 (2) Goldfine v. Superconductor Technologies , Inc. , et al. Case No. CV 04-02848

15 (3) Alvarez v. Superconductor Technologies, Inc.. et al. Case No. CV 04-02927

16 Questions of law and fact are undoubtedly common in all three cases.

17 Indeed, each case alleges the same violation of the Exchange Act against

18 Superconductor and the Individual Defendants. Moreover, each case involves the

19 misleading nature of various statements made by Superconductor and the

20 Individual Defendants, and each case alleges that shareholders were damaged

21 when they purchased Superconductor shares at prices that were artificially inflated

22 by misleading statements made by STI and the Individual Defendants. As such,

23 consolidation will promote efficiency, simplify pretrial matters and reduce

24 confusion. Therefore, this Court finds that consolidation of these related cases is

25

26

27

28 8


1 warranted and GRANTS Plaintiffs Marc A. Backhaus and Jay Jakubowitz's

2 ("Jakubowitz Group") motion to consolidate?

3 III. Plaintiffs Marc A. Backhaus and Jay Jakubowitz 's ("Jakubowitz

4 Group") Motions for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of

5 Lead Counsel

6 A. Standard

7 1. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

8 The procedure for appointing lead plaintiff in a private action arising

9 under the Exchange Act and brought as a plaintiff class action is established in the

1o Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-

11 4(a)(1), 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). The plaintiff filing the initial action must publish

12 notice informing class members of their right to file a motion for appointment to

13 lead plaintiff withing 20 days of filing the original complaint. Id. at § 78u-

14 4(a)(3)(A)(i). Within 60 days of the publication of the notice, any person who is a

15 member of the proposed class may apply to the Court for appointment to lead

16 plaintiff. Id. at §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(A), 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The court shall consider any

17 motions brought by plaintiffs or purported class members to appoint lead plaintiff

18 and will appoint the "most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff. Id. at §

19 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). In appointing lead plaintiff, "the court shall adopt a

20 presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any private action arising under

21 this title is the person or group of persons that:

22 (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a

23 notice;

24

25

26 2 In the Conclusion section of this Order, this Court explains the filing of an

2 7 Amended Class Action Complaint.

28 9


1 (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in

2 the relief sought by the class; and

3 (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules

4 of Civil Procedure."

5 Id. That presumption can only be rebutted upon proof by a class member that the

6 presumptively most adequate plaintiff "will not fairly and adequately protect the

7 interests of the class" or "is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff

s incapable of representing the class." Id. at § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

9 Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure' requires that the

1o representative's claim be typical of those in the class and that the representative

11 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In re Cavanau h, 306

12 F.3d 726, 730 (9`Cir. 2002). Typicality is satisfied where the named plaintiff has

13 (1) suffered the same injuries as the absent class members, (2) as a result of the

14 same course of conduct by the defendants, and (3) his/her claims are based upon

15 the same legal issues as the class members. Hanon v. Data roducts Corp ., 976

16 F.2d 497, 508 (9t' Cir. 1992); Haley v. Medtronic, Inc. , 169 F.R.D. 643, 649 (C.D.

17 Cal. 1994); Schwartz v. HUp, 108 F.R.D. 279, 282 (C.D. Cal. 1985). The

18 typicality requirement does not require that the named plaintiff "be identically

19 situated with all other class member. It is enough if their situations involve

20 `common issues of law or fact."' O'Connor v. Boeing North Am.. Inc. , 184 F.R.D.

21

22

3 FRCP 23(a) provides that a party may serve as a class representative if the23

following prerequisites are met:24 (1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

25impracticable, (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 claims26 or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and

27 adequately protect the interests of the class.

28 10


1 311, 332 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Adequacy of representation "depends upon the

2 qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a

3 sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood

4 that the suit is collusive." Brown v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. , 982 F.2d 386, 390 (9th

5 Cir. 1992). The purpose of this requirement is to uncover any conflicts of interest

6 between named parties and the members of the class they seek to represent. Von

7 Collin v. County of Ventura , 189 F.R.D. 583, 592 (C.D. Cal. 1992)(quoting

s Amchem Prod. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997)).

9 2. Approval of Lead Counsel

10 Under § 21 D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Exchange Act, the lead plaintiff shall,

11 subject to court approval, select and retain counsel to represent the class. 15

12 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The court should only interfere with the lead

13 plaintiff's selection of counsel only where it is necessary to "protect the interests

14 of the class." Id. at § 78u-4(a)(B)(iii)(II)(aa).

15 B. Analysis

16 1. The Jakubowitz Group is the most adequate plaintiff

17 The first factor of the most adequate plaintiff presumption is whether

18 the plaintiff has made a motion in response to notice. The Jakubowitz Group

19 published a notice to the class within 20 days of filing the action informing the

20 class members of their right to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs.

21 The notice appeared over a national newswire service, PR Newswire . The notice

22 is sufficient and satisfies the requirements of Section 21D(a)(3)(i) of the Exchange

23 Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(i). Newswire services such as PR Newswire have

24 consistently been recognized as sufficient for meeting the statutory requirement

25 that notice be published in "a widely circulated national business oriented

26

27

28 11


1 publication or wire service." Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc. , 939 F. Supp. 57, 62-

2 64 (D. Mass. 1996).

3 The 60-day period in which any person who is a member of the

4 proposed class may apply for appointment to lead plaintiff expired on June 15,

5 2004. The Jakubowitz Group has moved within the statutory period as this

6 application was filed on the period's expiration date. Accordingly, this Court

7 finds that the Jakubowitz Group fulfills the first factor of the most adequate

8 plaintiff presumption.

9 The next factor involves determining who has the largest financial

1 o interest in the relief sought by the class. Under Section 21 D(e)(2) of the Exchange

11 Act, the calculated damages for plaintiffs are "the difference between the purchase

12 or sale price paid or received, as appropriate, by the plaintiff for the security and

13 the mean trading price of the security during the period beginning immediately

14 after dissemination of information correcting the misstatement or omission and

15 ending on the date on which plaintiff sells or repurchases the security." 15 U.S.C.

16 §78u-4(e)(2). If a plaintiff does not sell the securities within the 90-day period

17 immediately proceeding dissemination of the information to the market correcting

is the omissions and misstatements, the calculated damages are"the difference

19 between the purchase or sale price paid or received ... and the mean trading price

20 of the security during the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the

21 information correcting the misstatement or omission that is the basis for the action

22 is disseminated to the market." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(e)(1).

23 The Jakubowitz Group allege that collectively they have suffered

24 total losses of $985,527.63 from their purchases of STI common stock.

25 Individually, Plaintiff Jay Jakubowitz purchased $1,447,540.51 worth of common

26 stock of STI during the Class Period and declares a loss in position of

27

28 12


1 $783,927.63.4 Plaintiff Marc Backhaus purchased $263,240.00 worth of common

2 stock of STI during the same period and reports a loss in position of $201,600.00.5

3 At the present time, this Court is unaware of any other motion for appointment as

4 lead plaintiff by a class member or by a plaintiff in a related case that claims to

5 have sustained greater financial loss. Additionally, the Jakubowitz Group state

6 that they have not received any notice that any potential applicant has greater

7 financial losses resulting from the purchases of STI stock during the Class Period.

8 Based on the foregoing, the Jakubowitz Group have satisfied the largest financial

9 interest factor for the appointment of lead plaintiff under the Exchange Act.

10 This Court further finds that the Jakubowitz Group have shown that

11 they meet the requirements of Rule 23. The Jakubowitz Group assert claims that

12 are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class. They allege that

13 Defendants violated the Exchange Act by publicly disseminating materially false

14 and misleading statements about STI during the Class Period: They allege that

15 they acquired STI securities at prices artificially inflated by Defendants'

16 fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions and were damaged thereby. Because

17 their claims are based on the same legal theories and arise "from the same event or

18 course of conduct giving rise to the claims of other class members," typicality is

19

20 Plaintiff Jay Jakubowitz sold his shares prior to the expiration of the 90day period immediately following the dissemination of the correcting information

21to the market, and therefore his losses were calculated by the method prescribed in

22 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(e)(2). However, there is no indication in the present motion or

23 the Jakubowitz Declaration of the precise figures used to arrive at the statedamount.

24

255 This was calculated using $1.80 per share as the average trading price of

STI common stock during the 90 day period. Backhaus retained STI shares26 beyond the 90-day period and his losses were calculated by the method prescribed

27 by 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(e)(1).

28 13

0,.a


1 satisfied. With respect to the adequacy of representation, the Jakubowitz Group's

2 interests are aligned with the members of the proposed class, as they share

3 substantially similar questions of law and fact with the members of the proposed

4 class, and their claims are typical. Furthermore, there are no potential conflicts

5 between the Jakubowitz Group and the interests of the absent class members. The

6 Jakubowitz Group have submitted sworn certifications affirming the willingness

7 to serve as, and assume the responsibilities of lead plaintiff. (See Federman Decl.,

s Exh. 5; Jakubowitz Decl.; Backhaus Decl.) The Jakubowitz Group have further

.9 declared their intention of actively participating in the litigation and vigorously

1 o pursuing the claims on behalf of the class. Id. Since the Jakubowitz Group have

11 suffered the largest financial loss in the action, they have a strong incentive to

12 carry out their intention. Based on the foregoing, and the lack of any challenge by

13 the other class members or Defendants with respect to these factors, the

14 Jakubowitz Group have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23.

is 2. Plaintiffs' counsel is approved

16 The Jakubowitz Group have retained the law firm of Federman &

17 Sherwood as Lead Counsel and Lee Angel & Kent as Liaison Counsel to represent

18 the class, and the Jakubowitz Group submit the firms' resumes in support of their

19 choice. (See Federman Decl., Exh. 7, Exh. 8.) This Court agrees that Federman &

20 Sherwood have extensive experience in the area of securities and complex

21 litigation.' As such, this Court approves Plaintiffs' choice of counsel.

22

23 6 This Court makes the conclusion based on the resumes provided by both24 firms and the representations made in the current motion. The evidence of

25 experience in the specific area of securities class actions is sparse, but, since thereis no opposition, the Court does not believe this is one of the rare circumstances in

26 which choice of counsel should not be approved. Nonetheless, this Court notes an

27 area wherein counsel should improve - following Local Rules 11-3.2 (use of

28 14

W


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Marc A. Backhaus and Jay

Jakubowitz's Motion to Consolidate the Related Actions; For Appointment of

Lead Plaintiff; And For Approval of its Choice of Counsel as Lead and Liaison

Counsel for the Class. This Court orders Lead Plaintiff to file an Amended

Consolidated Class Action Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.

The caption of this document, and each document thereafter, shall provide:

Case No. CV 04-02690 DT (JTLx)

Consolidated with: CV 04-02848 DT, CV 04-02927 DT

Defendant's shall respond within 30 days from the date of the filing of said

Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: AUG - 2 2004DICKRAN TEVRIZIAN

Dic an Tevrizian, JudgeUnited States District Court

pleading paper) and 11-3.6 (Spacing).

15

L:3LJ

Yip

Documents

Backhaus, et al. v. Superconductor Technologies, …securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1030/SCON04-01/...14 (2) Goldfine v. Superconductor Technologies, Inc., et al. CaseNo