In re Finisar Corporation Securities Litigation
Filing
48
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL; denying in part and granti ng in part (26) Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel; denying in part and granting in part (28) Motion to Consolidate Cases and Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel; denying in part and granting in part (18) Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel; granting (21) Motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel in case 5:11-cv-01252-EJD. These cases shall be consolidated under the lower case num ber, 5:11-CV-01252-EJD, and case number 5:11-CV-01635-EJD shall be administratively closed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants and the appointed lead counsel shall meet and confer in order to agree on a schedule for the next stage of the case, incl uding the timing for the consolidated complaint and motion to dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Case Management Conference will be held in this matter before the Honorable Edward J. Davila on December 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1, 5th Floor, 280 S. First Street, San Jose, California. On or before December 2, 2011 the parties shall file a joint case management conference statement. Please see Order for further specifics. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/27/2011 (ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2011) Modified text on 10/27/2011 (ecg, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
MARTIN DERCHI RUSSO, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED
ACTIONS; AND (2) THE MOTION OF
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION
AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF
LEAD COUNSEL
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
FINISAR CORPORATION, et al.
15
[Re: Docket Item Nos. 18, 21, 26, 28]
Defendants.
16
17
18
/
I. INTRODUCTION
In this securities class action lawsuit, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
19
(“Oklahoma Firefighters”); Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity
20
(“Philadelphia Teamsters”), City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System (“Pontiac”), and
21
James Ray Abell (collectively, the “Abell Group”); Andrew Lee; Daniel Levy; and Hetal Patel
22
(collectively, “Movants”) each seek (1) consolidation of all related actions, (2) appointment as lead
23
plaintiff, and (3) approval of selection of lead counsel. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions,
24
the Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). For
25
the reasons described below, the court GRANTS Movants’ uncontested motions for consolidation of
26
all related actions, and grants the motion of Oklahoma Firefighters for appointment as lead plaintiff
27
28
1
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
and approval of its selection of lead counsel.1
2
3
II. BACKGROUND
Movants seek to consolidate two pending class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of persons
4
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of Defendant Finisar Corporation
5
between December 1, 2010 and March 8, 2011. The cases implicated in Movants motions are as
6
follows:
7
Abbreviated Case Name
Case Number
Date Filed
8
Derchi-Russo v. Finisar Corp., et al.
5:11-CV-01252-EJD
March 15, 2011
9
Wade v. Finisar Corp., et al.
5:11-CV-01635-EJD
April 4, 2011
These related actions are brought pursuant to §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs in
12
these actions charge Finisar Corporation and certain of its officers and directors (collectively,
13
“Defendants” or “Finisar”) with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
14
Finisar is a provider of optical subsystems and components that connect short-distance local
15
area networks, storage area networks, longer distance metropolitan area networks, fiber-to-the-home
16
networks, cable television networks and wide area networks. See Complaint, Docket Item No. 1, ¶
17
2. The Complaint2 alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and
18
misleading statements regarding Finisar’s business and financial results. Id., ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allege
19
that, as a result of Defendants’ false statements, Finisar’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices
20
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $43.23 per share on February 14, 2011. Id., ¶ 7. On
21
March 8, 2011, after the market closed, Finisar issued a press release announcing its third quarter
22
fiscal year 2011 results. Id., ¶ 29. Finisar reported earnings of $18.8 million, or $0.22 diluted
23
earnings per share, and revenue of $263.0 million. Id. Finisar further reported its fourth-quarter
24
25
1
26
2
27
28
This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.
The complaint referenced herein refers to the first-filed lawsuit against Defendants,
Derchi-Russo v. Finisar Corp., et al., filed on March 15, 2011. The related case raises identical
claims for the same groups of investors.
2
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
2011 revenues would be in the range of $235 to $250 million, lower than analysts’ estimates. Id.
2
On this news, Finisar’s stock fell $15.43 per share to close at $24.61 per share on March 9, 2011, a
3
one-day decline of nearly 39%. Complaint, ¶ 30.
4
According to the Complaint, the true facts, which were known by the Defendants but
5
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Finisar’s recent
6
revenue surge was not due solely to organic growth from real end-market demand, but rather it was
7
partially due to an inventory build by Finisar’s customers; (b) Finisar was experiencing increasing
8
pricing pressures due to intense competition in the industry and, as a result, it was forced to concede
9
to steep discounts in order to retain certain of its customers; (c) Finisar was experiencing a serious
slowdown in business from China, which would have a detrimental effect on Finisar’s ability to
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
continue growing at unprecedented rates; and (d) Finisar failed to disclose known trends and
12
uncertainties as required by SEC regulations concerning its revenue growth rate. Complaint, ¶ 31.
13
On March 15, 2011, shareholder Martin Derchi-Russo published notice of the pendency of
14
the action to investors, which provided a deadline to seek lead plaintiff status by May 16, 2011. See
15
Decl. of Ian D. Berg in Supp. of Oklahoma Firefighters’ Mot. to Consolidate, Appoint. Lead Pl. and
16
Counsel (“Berg Decl.”, Docket Item No. 22, Ex. A.)
17
On May 16, 2011, each Movant filed, on their own behalf, a motion to consolidate the
18
related actions, appoint a lead plaintiff in this action, and approve selection of lead counsel for the
19
Class. See Docket Item Nos. 18, 21, 24, 26, and 28. On June 20, 2011, Hetal Patel withdrew his
20
application for appointment as lead plaintiff. Docket Item No. 38. On September 28, 2011, Daniel
21
Levy conceded that he did not suffer the largest financial loss of all of the Movants. Docket Item
22
No. 39. On September 30, 2011, the Abell Group conceded that Oklahoma Firefighters is
23
presumptively the most adequate plaintiff. Docket Item No. 41. That same day, Defendants filed a
24
response to Movants’ motions, agreeing that the cases should be consolidated, but taking no position
25
on the selection of lead plaintiff or lead counsel. Docket Item No. 40.
26
27
28
Presently before the court are Movants’ unopposed motions to consolidate all related actions,
and the competing motions of Oklahoma Firefighters, the Abell Group, Andrew Lee and Daniel
3
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
Levy for appointment as lead plaintiff/lead counsel.
2
III. DISCUSSION
3
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), the court must
4
decide whether to consolidate the related actions prior to selecting a plaintiff to lead this litigation on
5
behalf of the putative class. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). Once the actions are consolidated,
6
“the court shall appoint the most adequate plaintiff as lead plaintiff for the consolidated actions” as
7
soon as practicable. Id.
8
A.
9
Each Movant has filed a motion for consolidation of the related actions, and such motions
are uncontested. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Consolidation
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court,
it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
12
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases
14
pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877
15
F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). The court agrees that these actions present virtually identical factual
16
and legal issues and therefore should be consolidated. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion
17
to consolidate.
18
B.
Lead plaintiff
19
Section 21D of the PSLRA provides procedures for selecting lead plaintiffs in a securities
20
class action. All proposed lead plaintiffs must submit a sworn statement setting forth certain facts
21
designed to assure the court that the plaintiff (i) has suffered more than a nominal loss, (ii) is not a
22
professional litigant, and (iii) is otherwise interested and able to serve as a class representative. 15
23
U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(2)(A). The plaintiff in the first lawsuit to be filed must additionally publish
24
notice of the complaint in a widely circulated business publication within twenty days of filing the
25
complaint. 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice must include a description of the claim and
26
notify prospective class members that they may move within 60 days of the notice to be named lead
27
28
4
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I)-(II). Once applications for lead plaintiff status are closed,
2
the district court must determine who among the movants for lead plaintiff status is the “most
3
adequate plaintiff.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B) (i). The PSLRA directs courts to “appoint as lead
4
plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most
5
capable of adequately representing the interests of class members . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)
6
(i).
7
In the Ninth Circuit, In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729–30 (9th Cir. 2002), governs lead
complete notice of the action must be published. Id. at 729. Second, the district court considers the
10
losses suffered by potential lead plaintiffs and selects “the one who ‘has the largest financial interest
11
For the Northern District of California
plaintiff selection and establishes a three-step process. First, as discussed above, timely and
9
United States District Court
8
in the relief sought by the class' and ‘otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
12
Rules of Civil Procedure.’” Id. at 730 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B) (iii)(I)). The court must
13
thus determine which plaintiff “has the most to gain from the lawsuit.” Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730.
14
Finally, the court focuses on that plaintiff to ensure that the proposed lead plaintiff “satisfies the
15
requirements of [Fed. R. Civ. Pro.] 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’ and ‘adequacy.’” Id. A
16
plaintiff who satisfies the first two steps becomes the “presumptively most adequate plaintiff.” Id.
17
In step three, other plaintiffs have the opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing
18
of typicality and adequacy. Id. at 730 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)).
19
Here, each Movant filed timely motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. Mr. Patel later
20
withdrew his application for appointment as lead plaintiff. Docket Item No. 38. The Abell Group
21
and Mr. Levy acknowledged that they do not have the largest financial interest in the relief sought
22
by the class, and thus are not the “most adequate plaintiff.” See Docket Item Nos. 41 and 39. It is
23
not clear whether Mr. Lee intends to pursue his motion, because he did not file a reply to the
24
Oklahoma Firefighters’ motion. In any event, the Court finds that the Oklahoma Firefighters is
25
more appropriately appointed as lead plaintiff.
26
27
28
5
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
The Oklahoma Firefighters have suffered losses in the amount of $479,692.41,3 while
2
Andrew Lee suffered losses of approximately $130,821.53.4 Moreover, the Oklahoma Firefighters
3
have made an adequate preliminary showing that they satisfy the typicality and adequacy
4
requirements of Rule 23(a): like all plaintiffs in this action, they claim that they purchased Finisar
5
securities during the class period based upon Defendants’ false and misleading statements
6
(typicality) and there appears to be no reason that their interests would conflict with those of the
7
class (adequacy). As the Oklahoma Firefighters filed proper notice of the action, have the largest
8
financial interest in the relief sought, and have made the required showing under Rule 23(a), they are
9
the “presumptively most adequate plaintiff.” Movant Andrew Lee raises no issues that overcome
this presumption. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Oklahoma Firefighters’ motion for
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
appointment as lead plaintiff.
12
C.
13
Lead counsel
Once the court has designated a lead plaintiff, the lead plaintiff “shall, subject to the approval
14
of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3) (B)(v). A
15
court generally should accept the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel unless it appears necessary to
16
appoint different counsel to “protect the interests of the class.” Id. at § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa).
17
In the Ninth Circuit, Cavanaugh establishes the standard for approval of lead counsel. “[T]he
18
district court does not select class counsel at all,” and typically approves the lead plaintiff's selection
19
of counsel. Id. at 732–34. Here, the Oklahoma Firefighters have selected the law firm of Abraham,
20
Fruchter & Twersky to represent them. The Court approves their selection and GRANTS the
21
Oklahoma Firefighters’ motion for appointment of lead counsel.
IV. CONCLUSION
22
23
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown on the current record, the court hereby
24
GRANTS the Oklahoma Firefighters’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and appointment of
25
3
26
27
28
See Berg Decl., Ex. C.
4
See Decl. of Ramzi Abadou In Supp. of Andrew Lee’s Mot. to Consolidate, Appoint.
Lead Pl. and Counsel, Docket Item No. 27, Ex. C.
6
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky as lead counsel (Docket Item No. 21) and DENIES Andrew Lee’s
2
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and appointment of lead counsel. Docket Item No. 26. The
3
motions of Daniel Levy and the Abell Group, for appointment as lead plaintiff, are DENIED as
4
moot. Docket Item Nos. 28, and 18. The motions for consolidation, filed by Daniel Levy,
5
Oklahoma Firefighters, Hetal Patel, Andrew Lee, and the Abell Group, are GRANTED. Docket
6
Item Nos. 18, 21, 24, 26, and 28. These cases shall be consolidated under the lower case number,
7
5:11-CV-01252-EJD, and case number 5:11-CV-01635-EJD shall be administratively closed.
8
9
confer in order to agree on a schedule for the next stage of the case, including the timing for the
consolidated complaint and motion to dismiss.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants and the appointed lead counsel shall meet and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Case Management Conference will be held in this matter
12
before the Honorable Edward J. Davila on December 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1, 5th
13
Floor, 280 S. First Street, San Jose, California. On or before December 2, 2011 the parties shall file
14
a joint case management conference statement.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: October 27, 2011
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
CASE NO. 5:CV 11-01252-EJD
ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL RELATED ACTIONS; AND (2) THE
MOTION OF OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR APPOINTMENT AS
LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?