is primarily a drug wholesaling business. 5 . The complaint alleges that the other individual defendant, Gilbertson, was the chief operating officer and the chief financial officer of HBOC. The complaint does not allege that Gilbertson was fired because of his actions. 6 . 15 U.S.C.A. §§ Ilk, 111(a)(2) and 77o. 7 . Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., et al., D.C.N.D. Cal, No. C-99-20743-RMW, 79 F.Supp.2d 1146; now In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C.N.D.Cal., No. C-99-20743-RMW. 8 . Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77Z-l(a)(3)(B). 9 . In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S.D.C.N.D. Cal., No. C-99-20743RMW, amended complaint ¶$ 108, 109. 10 . Derdig rs Litigation, Del.Ch., C.A.No. 12508, Chandler, V.C., 1993 WL 179335 (May 20, 1993) (<HOLDING>); but see Dura Pharm., 713 A.2d at 929 (holding
holding that under the mailbox rule the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed holding that the 90day evaluation period begins to run from the time notice of a claim has been filed even though the public agency requests additional information after that date holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding sanctions were appropriate when excessive responsive pleadings were filed for purposes of delay holding that when lawsuits were filed concerning chambers restructuring between march 18 and the delaware filing date of april 1 the suits were filed in the same general time period as to be considered con temporaneous for purposes of evaluation under the cryomaid factors