notices. Not only do Defendants fail to show why the current Lead Plaintiffs cannot adequately represent investors covered by the expanded Class period, but Defendants have no chance to be appointed Lead Plaintiffs because current Lead Plaintiffs have suffered far more substantial losses, more than $1.5 million. Decl. of Federman, Ex. A and B in support of Spitzberg/Gerber Group’s motion for consolidation, appointment of Lead Plaintiffs, and approval of Lead Plaintiffs’ selection of co-lead counsel (#20). The cost of republication would outweigh any marginal gains from notifying class members of the extension of the Class Period. In re Cyberonics Inc. Securities Litigation, 468 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (S.D.Tex.2006), citing Greenberg v. Bear Steams & Co., 80 F.Supp.2d 65 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>) (and cases cited therein). Plaintiffs also
holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint holding that the pslra does not mandate nor does it suggest that a court approved lead plaintiff must republish a notice of the purported class after an amended complaint is filed in cases where amended complaints encompassed the same claims and securities but different class periods courts have generally found that the efficiency of republication outweighs the marginal fairness gains of notifying class members of an extended class period  holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members