Lomingkit v. Apollo Education Group Incorporated et al

Filing 41

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that GGRFs Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Its Selection of Lead Counsel, (Doc. 34 ), is GRANTED. GGRF's selection of lead counsel is approved, and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is ap pointment as lead counsel for the purported class. Tiffany & Bosco P.A. is appointed to serve as local counsel for lead plaintiff and the purported class. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Li, National Shopmen, and Iron Worker's competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel, (Docs. 30 , 31 , 33 ), are DENIED. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/16/16. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Rameses Te Lomingkit, et al.,

No. CV-16-00689-PHX-DLR

Plaintiffs,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Apollo Education Group Incorporated, et
al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court are four competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and

17

approval of lead counsel, (Docs. 30, 31, 33, 34).

18

Government of Guam Retirement Fund’s (GGRF) motion, (Doc. 34), is granted and the

19

remaining competing motions, (Docs. 30, 31, 33), are denied.

20

For the following reasons, the

BACKGROUND

21

This is a securities fraud class action brought under the Securities and Exchange

22

Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) against Apollo Education Group Incorporated (Apollo) and

23

several of its executive officers on behalf of all purchasers of Apollo Class A common

24

stock between June 26, 2013, and October 21, 2015, (Doc. 1, ¶ 1). Apollo owns and

25

operates several for-profit educational institutions around the country, (Id., ¶ 2).

26

Plaintiffs allege that, during the class period, “Apollo reported generating billions of

27

dollars in revenues while concealing that a substantial portion of those revenues were

28

being derived through recruiting tactics being undertaken at U.S. military bases across the

1

country that contradicted an Executive Order signed into law by President [Barack]

2

Obama on April 27, 2012,” and “concealed that Apollo was using improper recruiting

3

tactics that likely violated the express terms of the contractual agreements the Company

4

had entered into with the [U.S. Department of Defense] in February 2012 and July 2014,”

5

(Id., ¶ 3). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Apollo concealed from its investors that its

6

new online classroom platform contained a technical glitch that prevented online students

7

from accessing their courses, resulting in a dramatic decline in student retention and new

8

enrollment rates, (Id., ¶¶ 4-7). Plaintiffs allege that the price of Apollo Class A common

9

stock plummeted by approximately 80% when these misdeeds came to light, (Id., ¶ 13).

10

This lawsuit followed, and now four Apollo Class A common stock investors separately

11

have moved for appointment as lead plaintiff: Yingbo Li, (Doc. 30); National Shopmen

12

Pension Fund (National Shopmen), (Doc. 31); Iron Workers District Council

13

(Philadelphia & Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan (Iron Workers), (Doc. 33); and

14

GGRF, (Doc. 34).1

15

LEGAL STANDARD

16

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) establishes a

17

procedure for selecting a lead plaintiff in class actions brought under the Exchange Act.

18

See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3). The plaintiff(s) responsible for bringing the action must

19

publish a notice advertising the members of the purported class within 20 days of filing

20

the complaint. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Any member of the purported class has 60 days from

21

the date the notice was published to move to serve as lead plaintiff.

22

4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). Within 90 days of publication, the court must “consider any motion

23

made by a purported class member . . . and shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or

24

members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of

25

adequately representing the interest of class members . . . .” § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).

26

§ 78u-

The PSLRA establishes a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff

27
28

1

A fifth motion, filed by Betty McLeod and Janine LaDouceur, was withdrawn,
(Docs. 27, 37).
-2-

1

is the person or entity that: (1) “has either filed the complaint or made a motion in

2

response to a notice,” (2) “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the

3

class,” and “otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure.” § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). This presumption is rebuttable only by proof that

5

the presumptively adequate plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests

6

of the class” or “is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of

7

adequately representing the class.” § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

8
9
10

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a):
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

11

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;

12

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

13

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.
Only factors three and four—typicality and adequacy—are relevant to the selection of
lead plaintiff. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002); Tsirekidze v. SyntaxBrillian Corp., No. CV-07-2204-PHX-FJM, 2008 WL 942273, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7,
2008). “If the plaintiff with the largest financial stake in the controversy provides
information that satisfies these requirements, he becomes the presumptively most
adequate plaintiff.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Rameses Te Lomingkit filed the complaint in this matter on March 14,
2016, and published notice of the action in PR Newswire the same day, (Doc. 1; Doc. 361 at 9-11). On May 13, 2016, Li, National Shopmen, Iron Workers, and GGRP timely
filed their separate motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, (Docs. 30, 31, 33, 34). All
four movants satisfy the PSLRA’s first requirement because they have filed motions in
response to a notice.
-3-

1
2

The four movants claim to have suffered the following financial losses as a result
of Apollo’s alleged securities fraud:

3

1. Li: $2,527.40, (Doc. 30-2 at 14);

4

2. National Shopmen: $506,283.54, (Doc. 32-3 at 2);

5

3. Iron Workers: $335,053.02, (Doc. 33-3 at 2);

6

4. GGRF: $545,742.95, (Doc. 36-1 at 7).

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No one disputes the accuracy of these figures. GGRF therefore has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class.
GGRF also satisfies Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy requirements. “The test of
typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is
based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class
members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts
Corp.. 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
GGRF, like the other purported class members, claims to have purchased Apollo Class A
common stock during the class period at prices artificially inflated by Apollo’s alleged
fraud, and claims to have suffered financial loss when the stock price plummeted
following disclosure of Apollo’s alleged misdeeds, (Doc. 35 at 3-4; Doc. 36-1 at 2-7).
The test for adequacy is whether: “(1) the proposed lead plaintiff’s interests are in
common with, and not antagonistic to, those of the class; and (2) proposed lead plaintiff’s
counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation.”
Schonfield v. Dendreon Corp., No. C07-800MJP, 2007 WL 2916533, at *4 (W.D. Wash.
Oct. 4, 2007) (citing Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir.
1978)). As a fellow purchaser of Apollo Class A common stock during the class period
who suffered financially from the dramatic reduction in stock price, GGRF’s interests
appear identical to those of the other purported class members and movants, and no one
asserts otherwise. GGRF is represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
(BLB&G) as lead counsel and Tiffany & Bosco P.A. as local counsel, (Doc. 36 at 2).
Through firm resumes appended to its motion, GGRF has demonstrated that BLB&G and
-4-

1

Tiffany & Bosco are qualified, experienced, and capable of conducting successful

2

securities litigation, (Doc. 36-1 at 13-72).2

3

otherwise raised concerns regarding the qualifications of BLB&G or Tiffany & Bosco,

4

and under the PSLRA the Court generally defers to the lead plaintiff’s proposed counsel

5

unless there is reason to believe that chosen counsel will not adequately protect the

6

interests of the class. Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Ca1., 586 F.3d 703, 711-12

7

(9th Cir. 2009).

Moreover, no one has objected to or

8

The Court therefore finds that GGRF is the most adequate plaintiff to represent the

9

purported class. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that no one has objected

10

to GGRF’s motion. See In re KIT Digital, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 F.R.D. 441, 443-44

11

(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (equating failure to file an opposition motion with withdrawal or

12

abandonment of initial motion to serve as lead plaintiff). Indeed, National Shopmen—the

13

only movant to respond to GGRF’s motion—acknowledges that GGRF’s financial loss is

14

greater than its own, raises no concerns over the adequacy of GGRF or its chosen

15

counsel, and states that it remains willing and able to serve as lead plaintiff “[i]f the Court

16

determines that [GGRF] does not satisfy the PSLRA’s requirements for appointment as

17

lead plaintiff for any reason,” (Doc. 38 at 2). Accordingly, there being no objection, and

18

based on the foregoing findings,

19

IT IS ORDERED that GGRF’s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and

20

Approval of Its Selection of Lead Counsel, (Doc. 34), is GRANTED. GGRF’s selection

21

of lead counsel is approved, and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is

22

appointment as lead counsel for the purported class. Tiffany & Bosco P.A. is appointed

23

to serve as local counsel for lead plaintiff and the purported class.

24

//

25

//

26
27
28

2

Indeed, other courts have found BLB&G to be qualified to serve as lead counsel
in cases under the Exchange Act. See Frias v. Dendreon Corp., 835 F. Supp. 2d 1067,
1076 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Crawford v. Onyx Software Corp., No. C01-1346L, 2002 WL
356760, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2002).

-5-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Li, National Shopmen, and Iron Worker’s

2

competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel, (Docs.

3

30, 31, 33), are DENIED.

4

Dated this 16th day of June, 2016.

5
6
7
8
9

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-