for the class is subject to unique defenses, not whether class members with unique defenses require separate leadership. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 78u-4 (a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(bb) (West 1999). Moreover, Flanigan mischaracterizes Chill v. Green Tree Financial, 181 F.R.D. 398 (D.Minn.1998) to buttress his position; the District of Minnesota is located in the Eighth Circuit, not the Third Circuit, see 28 U.S.C. § 41 (1994), and is indeed bound by the Eighth Circuit’s restrictive precedent on option-holder standing, which was one reason for that court’s decision to create a separate options class. In any event, at least one case from this District has already taken a much broader view of option-holder standing. See In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, 139 F.R.D. 150, 155 (N.D.Cal.1991) (<HOLDING>) 4 . This determination in no way precludes the
holding that options traders may assert rule 10b5 claims holding that reliance on a material omission may be presumed in a rule 10b5 case holding that loss causation is a necessary element of a rule 10b5 claim holding that both section 122 and rule 10b5 claims are timebarred by section 13 recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5