Transcript of HEARING ON MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND LEAD COUNSEL
commencing on NOVEMBER 21, 2004
United States District Court, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
BEFORE: HONORABLE THOMAS M. HARDIMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
On pages 39 and 40 of the court proceeding:
23 We respectfully request, Your Honor, that to the
24 extent the Court does believe that the Columbus funds do have
25 the largest financial interest and they should be afforded the
1 presumption, we would respectfully request we get discovery to
2 determine how they acquired the shares and what the strategy
3 was. A very focused discovery, of the type that must have
4 been granted most recently in the Beyers case, a case in
5 Massachusetts where the Court did grant discovery to a hedge
6 fund because of the trading strategy they engaged in.
7 Columbus is aware of in a California case they were
8 found to be engaged in unique trading strategy, and as a
9 result of that, they were disqualified as the lead plaintiff.
10 THE COURT: Who was?
11 MR. ROSENFELD: Columbus. They moved to be
12 appointed as lead counsel in the case in California. In that
13 instance, they engaged in unique trading strategy, short
14 selling. Based on that, they were found to be inadequate.
Is it possible to know if Columbus Capital was short selling WHAI?
Can the court order the stock transaction reports for that day?
How did they get caught in the case in California?
Ultimate
AI
