Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.2
Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., 2011 WL 4079178 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the court granted a pension fund’s unopposed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. The court noted that it had insufficient information
before it to determine whether the pension fund was presumptively the most adequate lead
plaintiff because it did not know who in the putative class actually had the greatest financial
stake in the outcome of the case. Nevertheless, since the pension fund was the only plaintiff to
move for appointment and had made a prima facie case that it satisfied the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, the court appointed the pension fund as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of
counsel.
Russo v. Finisar Corp., 2011 WL 5117560 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011).
In a securities class action, the district court considered competing motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff filed by a pension fund, two individual investors, and a group
comprised of two pension funds and an individual investor. The court found that the pension
fund reported the largest financial losses and was thus entitled to presumptive lead plaintiff
status. Since no other movants attempted to rebut the presumption, the court appointed the
pension fund as lead plaintiff after finding that it met the typicality and adequacy requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The court also approved the pension fund’s choice of counsel.
Krieger v. Atheros Communc’n, Inc., 2011 WL 6153154 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the court considered an unopposed motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff filed by an individual investor. Since there were no other movants,
the individual investor was presumptively the most adequate lead plaintiff. Accordingly, after
finding that the individual investor satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court
appointed the movant as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of lead counsel.
Mallen v. Alphatec Holding, Inc., 2011 WL 175687 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the district court granted an unopposed motion
for appointment of lead counsel filed by a retirement association. The court concluded that the
retirement association had the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation since no
other plaintiff had come forward claiming a larger loss. Accordingly, after finding that the
retirement association met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court appointed it as lead
plaintiff and approved its selection of counsel.
D.2
D.2
D.2
188