Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

argument was irrelevant because there was no evidence that any other Estonian investors existed
and the possible lack of preclusive effect as to other Estonian investors would be an issue
regardless of the identity of the lead plaintiff. Accordingly, the court appointed the Estonian
Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of lead and liaison counsel.
Frias v. Dendreon Corp., 2011 WL 6330179 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the court considered two competing motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff filed by a retirement association and a seven-member group of
investors. Although the group of investors collectively had the greatest financial stake in the
outcome of the litigation, the retirement association objected to aggregating the group’s losses
because the group had no pre-existing relationship and was allegedly formed solely for purposes
of obtaining lead plaintiff status. The court found that the group had been introduced by counsel
and the court was unconvinced that it would act cohesively to protect the interests of the class.
Specifically, the group’s proposed plan for making decisions by a majority vote was susceptible
to failure and lacked provisions to address tie-breaking and potential indecision among married
couples who had agreed to cast only one vote. Accordingly, since the retirement association had
a greater financial stake in the outcome of the litigation over any individual movant and appeared
to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court appointed the retirement association as
lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.
Wolfe v. Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., 2011 WL 2726019 (D. Colo. Jul. 11, 2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the court granted an individual investor’s
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. The court found that the individual investor had timely
filed the requisite motion and there was no evidence that any other class member had a larger
financial interest. Accordingly, after finding that the individual investor met the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court granted his motion and approved his choice of counsel.
Kinnett v. Strayer Educ., Inc., 2011 WL 317758 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2011).
In a putative securities fraud class action, the district court initially considered two
competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff filed by two pension funds. One of the
pension funds withdrew its motion. Thus, the remaining pension fund was the only movant for
lead plaintiff and there was no dispute that it had the greatest financial stake in the outcome of
litigation. Accordingly, after finding that the remaining movant satisfied the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court appointed it lead plaintiff and approved its choice of lead and liaison
counsel.
D.2
D.2
D.2
191