With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 183 F.R.D. 404, 414-15, n. 14 (D.N.J.1998), the defendants do have standing to object to the form of the notice published by the plaintiff after filing the complaint. See In re Lucent, 194 F.R.D. at 148; see also Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp., 188 F.R.D. 577, 580 (N.D.Cal.1999) (noting that "excluding defendants from the discussion of what notice is adequate would not serve to bring to light the range of considerations the court should have in view when deciding upon notice.”). Since the Court addresses only the adequacy of the published notice in this Opinion, the Court will consider the objections to that notice raised by the defendants. 3 . See, e.g., Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp., 964 F.2d 272, 286 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 934, 113 S.Ct. 365, 121 L.Ed.2d 278 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Joseph v. Q.T. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155,

A: holding that employees could be required under mandatory securities registration form to arbitrate claims brought under adea
B: holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement
C: holding that to maintain action under  11 of the securities act plaintiff must allege purchase of shares traceable to the allegedly false ot misleading registration statement
D: holding that as to each predicate act the plaintiff must allege the time place and contents of the misrepresentations
C.