Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

IBEW Local 90 Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2011 WL 6057812 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5,
2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the court considered two competing motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff filed by a group of pension funds and an individual investor. The
individual investor, however, withdrew his motion because the group of pension funds
undisputedly had a larger financial interest in the relief sought by the class and had made a prima
facie showing of adequacy and typicality as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Accordingly, the
court appointed the group of pension funds as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.
Goldstein v. Puda Coal, Inc., 2011 WL 6075861 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011).
After consolidating eleven related securities fraud class actions, the court considered four
competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff filed by four groups of investors. The court
found that a group of investors led by Mr. Querub (the “Querub Group”) suffered the largest
collective financial loss and, thus, it was presumptively the most adequate lead plaintiff. The
court rejected the argument that Mr. Querub was subject to unique defenses because he had
purportedly purchased shares after disclosure of the alleged fraud. The court noted that the
alleged disclosure was merely an unconfirmed third-party report and not a “curative disclosure”
rendering Mr. Querub’s claims atypical. The court also rejected the argument that one of the
Querub Group member’s claims were atypical because he had purchased stock options. The
court noted that the member had purchased both common stock and options and focused the
typicality analysis on defendants’ alleged misconduct that caused injury to the class. The court
further rejected a challenge to the aggregation of the Querub Group’s losses because the Querub
Group submitted sworn declarations that satisfied the court that the group would act cohesively.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that confusion regarding the relationship between one of
the Querub Group’s member LLCs and the individual who had signed a declaration on the
LLC’s behalf subjected the Querub Group to unique defenses because the signatory was the sole
owner of the LLC. Accordingly, after finding that the Querub Group met the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court appointed it lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.
Turner v. Shengdatech, Inc., 2011 WL 6110438 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011).
After consolidating related securities fraud class actions, the district court considered two
competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff filed by two groups of individual investors.
The court first rejected the argument that the consolidated action should be stayed for publication
of a new Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 notice. Although one of the movants
had filed a complaint which significantly expanded the class period, the court found that the new
complaint was sufficiently similar to the first filed class action. Next, the court found that there
was no dispute regarding which movant had the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the
litigation and was thus entitled to presumptive lead plaintiff status. Accordingly, after finding
D.2
D.2
D.2
183