In re VERIFONE HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Robert A. Sacks, (SBN 150146) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Brendan P. Cullen, (SBN 194057) Sverker K. Hogberg, (SBN
244640) Nathaniel L. Green, (SBN 260568) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Palo Alto, California. Attorneys for VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC. and Douglas Bergeron.
Jordan Eth, (SBN 121617) D. Anthony Rodriguez, (SBN 162587) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California. Attorneys for Barry Zwarenstein
Christopher P. Seefer, (SBN 201197) Christopher M. Wood, (SBN 254908) ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San Fancisco, CA. Patrick J. Coughlin, (SBN 111070) Francis A. Digiacco, (SBN 265625) ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San Diego, CA. Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff National Elevator Industry Pension Fund.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER AND EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on September, 15, 2010, lead plaintiff National Elevator Industry Pension Fund ("plaintiff") filed its Third Amended Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. #262);
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2010, defendants VeriFone Systems, Inc., Douglas Bergeron, and Barry Zwarenstein (collectively, "defendants") filed their Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. #264);
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2011, the Hon. Marilyn H. Patel issued an Amended Memorandum and Order Re: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissing plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint with prejudice ("Order Granting Motion to Dismiss") (Dkt. #275);
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Patel's Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit") (Dkt. #282);
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed, in part, the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, and reinstated plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Case No. 11-15860, Dkt. #58);
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition for rehearing en banc (Case No. 11-15860, Dkt. #61);
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. Proc. 41 and Ninth Cir. Rule 41-1 &-2 remanding the action back to the District Court;
WHEREAS, the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference on February 26, 2013;
WHEREAS, the parties participated in a mediation on ...