Felix v. Symantec Corporation et al

Filing 75

ORDER (1) CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS; (2) APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF; AND (3) INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAD COUNSEL. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JAMES FELIX, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 18-02902 WHA

Plaintiff,
ORDER (1) CONSOLIDATING
ACTIONS; (2) APPOINTING LEAD
PLAINTIFF; AND (3) INVITING
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAD
COUNSEL

v.

14

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
GREGORY S. CLARK, and NICHOLAS
R. NOVIELLO,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

INTRODUCTION

18

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, this order appoints SEB

19

Investment Management AB lead plaintiff. This order accordingly DENIES the motions of other

20

parties for appointment as lead plaintiff. This order also GRANTS the motion to consolidate

21

cases and sets forth the procedure to be used for the selection and approval of class counsel.

22

STATEMENT

23

On May 17, 2018, individual investor James Felix filed this putative securities class

24

action against defendant Symantec Corporation and individual defendants Gregory S. Clark,

25

CEO of Symantec, and Nicholas R. Noviello, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer of

26

Symantec, alleging false and misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws. That

27

same day, Felix’s counsel published a notice on Business Wire informing investors that a class

28

action lawsuit had been filed against Symantec and that investors had until July 16 to seek

1

appointment as lead plaintiff. A second such class action was filed in this district by individual

2

Samuel Broda on May 25 (Dkt. Nos. 1, 33-5).

3

Plaintiff alleges that Symantec revealed in May 2018 that its audit committee was

4

investigating Symantec’s accounting practices in connection with concerns raised by a former

5

employee and that Symantec had contacted the SEC to advise the SEC of its investigation.

6

Plaintiff further alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to

7

investors regarding the accuracy of Symantec’s financial reporting, its internal controls over

8

financial reporting, and the nature of the company’s executive compensation programs (Dkt. No.

9

1).
Five lead plaintiff candidates timely filed motions for appointment: (1) SEB Investment

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Management AB; (2) Norfolk County Council as administering authority of the Norfolk Pension

12

Fund; (3) Image Securities Ltd.; (4) Pedro Reyes; and (5) Itai Jaeger. All of these candidates

13

except for SEB — an institutional investor that purchased Symantec securities during the alleged

14

class periods and alleges losses of $6.1 million — either withdrew or did not oppose SEB’s

15

motion. Norfolk Pension Fund filed a “response” to SEB’s motion, but the response makes clear

16

that Norfolk Pension Fund does not oppose SEB’s appointment (Dkt. Nos. 11, 15, 20, 29, 32,

17

51–52, 55–58).

18

The undersigned judge requested that each lead plaintiff candidate file responses to a

19

questionnaire about its qualifications, experience in managing litigation, transactions in the

20

shares at issue, and any potential conflicts related to the instant securities litigation. SEB and

21

Norfolk Pension Fund have submitted answers to the lead plaintiff questionnaire. A hearing on

22

the appointment of lead plaintiff was held and SEB was questioned on its qualifications. Norfolk

23

Pension Fund was also in attendance. The Court thanks the lead plaintiff candidates for traveling

24

all the way from Sweden and the United Kingdom to appear at the hearing.

25

ANALYSIS
CONSOLIDATION.

26

1.

27

Under FRCP 42(a), the district court may consolidate actions where the actions involve a

28

“common question of law or fact.” The “district court has broad discretion under this rule to
2

1

consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for

2

Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

Here, both complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b), Rule 10(b)(5), and Section

4

20(a) of the Exchange Act and include allegations concerning Symantec’s May 2018

5

announcement regarding its audit committee’s investigation into the company’s public

6

disclosures. Both class periods end on May 10, 2018, but begin one day apart — the Felix class

7

period begins on May 20, 2017, while the Broda class period begins on May 19, 2017. FRCP

8

42(a), however, does not require the complaints to be identical for purposes of consolidation.

9

Because the complaints involve common questions of fact and law, the motion to consolidate is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GRANTED.
In the event that a subsequent plaintiff files a complaint against Symantec and/or its

12

officers that involves common questions of fact and law, counsel on both sides shall immediately

13

notify the undersigned judge of the related case. Any such complaint shall be automatically

14

consolidated unless the consolidation is opposed within one week of such notice.

15

2.

16

Under the PSLRA, the district court “shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or

APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF.

17

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

18

adequately representing the interests of the class members . . . in accordance with this

19

subparagraph.” 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i); 15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA creates a

20

rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff should be the plaintiff who: (1) has filed

21

the complaint or brought the motion for appointment of lead counsel in response to the

22

publication of notice; (2) has the “largest financial interest” in the relief sought by the class; and

23

(3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of FRCP 23. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)–(cc);

24

15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)–(cc). The above presumption may be rebutted only upon

25

proof that the presumptive lead plaintiff: (1) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests

26

of the class; or (2) is subject to “unique defenses” that render such plaintiff incapable of

27

adequately representing the class. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)–(bb); 15 U.S.C.

28

77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)–(bb).
3

1

The PSLRA establishes a three-step inquiry for appointing a lead plaintiff. First, a

2

plaintiff files the action and posts notice, allowing other lead plaintiff candidates to file motions.

3

Second, the district court considers which of those plaintiffs has the largest financial interest in

4

the action and whether that plaintiff meets the requirements of FRCP 23. Third, other candidates

5

have the opportunity to rebut the presumption that the putative lead plaintiff can adequately

6

represent the class. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729–30 (9th Cir. 2002).

7
8
9

A.

Largest Financial Interest.

The PSLRA does not indicate a specific method for calculating which plaintiff has the
“largest financial interest.” See 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb). Our court of appeals also
has not prescribed a particular method for calculating a plaintiff’s financial interest but has

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

directed that “the court may select accounting methods that are both rational and consistently

12

applied.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730 n.4.

13

Here, the movants calculate financial interest based on the losses suffered. Under this

14

test, courts consider: “(1) the number of shares purchased during the class period; (2) the

15

number of net shares purchased during the class period; (3) the total net funds expended during

16

the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered during the class period.” In re Diamond

17

Foods, Inc., Sec. Litig., 281 F.R.D. 405, 408 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The fourth factor, the net

18

“approximate loss,” is generally considered the most important factor. Ibid. Absent proof that

19

the lead plaintiff candidate with the largest financial interest does not satisfy the requirements of

20

FRCP 23, said candidate is “entitled to lead plaintiff status.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732.

21

SEB purchased 805,000 shares during the class period and suffered an estimated net loss

22

of $6.1 million as calculated under a first-in, first-out basis, and $5.3 million as calculated under

23

a last-in, first-out basis. Norfolk Pension Fund, who filed a “response” but not an opposition to

24

SEB’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, purchased only 41,373 shares and suffered an

25

estimated $445,000 in losses during the class period. Norfolk Pension Fund does not dispute

26

that SEB has asserted the largest financial interest. All other candidates have either withdrawn

27

or do not oppose SEB’s motion (Dkt. Nos. 51–52, 55–58). Because SEB has shown that it has

28
4

1

the largest financial interest within the meaning of the statute, it is presumptively the most

2

adequate lead plaintiff.

3
4

B.

Requirements of Typicality and Adequacy Under FRCP 23.

Once a court determines which plaintiff has the largest financial interest, “the court must

5

appoint that plaintiff as lead, unless it finds that [plaintiff] does not satisfy the typicality or

6

adequacy requirements” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732. The district court must inquire

7

whether the putative lead plaintiff satisfies the requirements of FRCP 23(a). Id. at 730. The

8

inquiry focuses on the “typicality” and “adequacy” requirements, as the other requirements in

9

FRCP 23 of numerosity and commonality would preclude class certification by themselves. Id.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

at 730 n.5.
The typicality requirement is satisfied when the putative lead plaintiff has suffered the

12

same injuries as absent class members as a result of the same conduct by the defendants.

13

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). In the instant action, the

14

alleged artificial inflation and consequent market corrections of the price of Symantec’s stock

15

caused by defendants’ allegedly false and misleading disclosures during the class period caused

16

SEB and absent class members alike to suffer financial loss. As a result, SEB’s claims are based

17

on the same legal theories as other class members.

18

The adequacy requirement of FRCP 23(a)(4) permits certification only if “the

19

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” The two key

20

inquiries are (1) whether there are conflicts within the class; and (2) whether plaintiff and

21

counsel will vigorously fulfill their duties to the class. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d

22

970, 985 (9th Cir. 2011). In its response to the lead plaintiff questionnaire, SEB identified Hans

23

Ek, SEB’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer, as being the individual in charge of managing its

24

litigation responsibilities. In addition, SEB’s in-house legal counsel will be advising Mr. Ek and

25

assisting with overseeing the litigation. SEB has been lead plaintiff in two other class actions

26

and asserts that there are no time or travel impediments to carrying out its responsibilities as lead

27

plaintiff in this action. This order concludes that SEB has made an initial showing of typicality

28

and adequacy, subject to a final determination of these requirements at the time of a FRCP 23
5

1

motion. Because this order does not appoint lead counsel at this time, the adequacy of counsel

2

ultimately selected will be determined at a later date.

3
4

C.

Attempts to Rebut Presumption.

Other plaintiffs may rebut the presumption that the putative lead plaintiff has satisfied the

5

requirements of typicality and adequacy. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. Norfolk Pension

6

Fund does not oppose the appointment of SEB as lead plaintiff but nevertheless argues that

7

SEB’s decision to simultaneously move for both appointment as lead plaintiff and appointment

8

of lead counsel “raises questions” in light of the undersigned judge’s past practices in PSLRA

9

cases. According to Norfolk Pension Fund, this “may reflect the fact that counsel has exercised
excessive influence over SEB, or that counsel is placing its own interests ahead of the class’s

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

interests.” Norfolk Pension Fund further argues that it is unclear whether SEB undertook an

12

open process in selecting counsel which would comport with the undersigned judge’s

13

requirements. SEB responds that it “is mindful of the Court’s practices, evaluated different law

14

firms before retaining Bernstein Litowitz and timely responded to the Court’s Questionnaire.”

15

SEB further responds that its counsel “has not ‘exercised excessive influence’ over SEB — a

16

large and sophisticated institution that is fully capable of protecting the interests of the Class.”

17

SEB has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the classes and otherwise

18

satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of FRCP 23. This order disagrees that the

19

concerns raised by Norfolk Pension Fund rebut the presumption that the putative lead plaintiff

20

has satisfied the requirements of typicality and adequacy. Any concerns regarding SEB’s choice

21

in counsel will be addressed in selecting lead counsel, as discussed below. SEB is therefore the

22

most adequate lead plaintiff.

23
24

INSTRUCTIONS TO SEB
SEB is appointed lead plaintiff. The following sets forth the procedure for selecting and

25

approving class counsel. Under the PSLRA, “[t]he most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the

26

approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. 78u-

27

4(a)(3)(B)(v). Selection and approval require an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and

28

experience of counsel as well as the financial burden — in terms of fees and costs — on the
6

1

class. Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp., 191 F.R.D. 600, 602–03 (N.D. Cal. February 4, 2000) (Judge

2

Vaughn R. Walker).

3

Any important decision made by a fiduciary should be preceded by due diligence. A lead

4

plaintiff is a fiduciary for the investor class. No decision by the lead plaintiff is more important

5

than the selection of class counsel. Consequently, the lead plaintiff should precede its choice

6

with due diligence. The extent of such due diligence is a matter of judgment and reasonableness

7

based on the facts and circumstances.

8
9

The lead plaintiff may consider its current counsel along with all other candidates but it
may not give current counsel any special preference. Considerations should include each
candidate’s fee proposal, its track record, the particular lawyers to be assigned to the case, the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

candidate’s ability and willingness to finance the case, the candidate’s proposals for the

12

prosecution of the case, and the factors set forth in the questionnaire.

13

The lead plaintiff should immediately proceed to perform its due diligence in the

14

selection of class counsel, and to interview appropriate candidates. Interviews shall take place in

15

San Francisco or New York, not Sweden. Counsel wishing to apply to be considered for the role

16

of lead counsel should promptly contact Hans Ek at:

17
18

SEB Investment Management AB
Stjärntorget 4
Stockholm, SE-106 40, Sweden
46-8-639-48-00

19
SEB shall promptly advertise for applicants and leave open the application period for
20
class counsel until SEPTEMBER 6, 2018, and shall make a final decision as to the selection of
21
counsel by SEPTEMBER 20, 2018. Through counsel, SEB shall move for the appointment and
22
approval of their selected counsel no later than SEPTEMBER 27, 2018. The motion should be
23
accompanied by a declaration from the lead plaintiff explaining the due diligence undertaken
24
with respect to the selection of class counsel. The declaration should also explain why the
25
counsel selected was favored over other potential candidates. The declaration should be filed
26
under seal and not served on defendants. The motion for approval of lead plaintiff’s choice of
27
counsel, however, should be served on defense counsel. No hearing will be held on the motion
28
unless the Court determines that it would be beneficial.
7

1

Once class counsel is approved, the first order of business will be to file a consolidated

2

complaint within 42 CALENDAR DAYS of the order appointing lead counsel. Defendants may

3

then file a motion to dismiss (or answer) within 42 CALENDAR DAYS. Any such motion shall be

4

noticed on the normal 35-day track.

5

This appointment is conditioned on lead plaintiff submitting certification in writing,

6

within SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS, that it has read this order and is willing and able to meet the

7

schedule and its fiduciary obligations.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: August 23, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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