edit: HBG - reasonable suppositions IMO
it may be related to the fact that multiple claimant groups are still jockeying for Lead Plaintiff/Lead Counsel status. Moreover, Bill Lerach's (Milberg-Weiss) group (i think) published a purported notice in Barron's (on or about Feb. 4, 2004) which had no binding legal support as a valid notice for PSLRA claims.
additionally, the same group published a subsequent notice on PR Newswire which ostensibly failed to note the Barrons purported notice (among at least one other technical deficiency which currently escapes me).
Wave opposed the purported notice/s on these grounds (as did other claimant groups) & one of their bases for extension was that no Lead Plaintiff has been assigned (yet).
The fact that there is still no LP, might give them some breathing room & P's counsel/s may have voluntarily agreed not to seek default judgment by virtue of that outstanding matter.
the parties might also be in settlement dialog.
it's comical IMO that the masters of DD will connect whatever stray dots they can find regarding obscure technology, yet their beloved company is facing millions in liabilities & they don't even follow the docket!
edit: gee Mig, i'm sorry that you don't know how to follow a federal case docket.
also, as i'm sure you are already aware, claims were brought under SEC laws by some plaintiffs and derivative claims brought by other claimants - haven't dug into the various dockets deeply enough (there are around 13 individual cases) to know whether they have all been consolidated on Ponsor's docket (though if they haven't it's likely they will be eventually).
i think the NJ cases were transferred to Mass btw.
