Stein v. Tangoe, Inc. et al
ORDER approving appointment of The Rosen Law Firm and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as co-lead counsel and Elstein and Elstein, P.C. as liaison counsel, and approving appointment of Lewis Stein as lead plaintiff. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/19/13. (Ives, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated
TANGOE, INC., ALBERT R.
SUBBLOIE, JR., and GARY R.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
August 19, 2013
Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel
This action was filed on March 1, 2013 by Lewis Stein purporting to
represent himself and a class of similarly situated individuals all of whom
purchased common stock of Tangoe, Inc. between December 20, 2011 and
September 5, 2012. Two separate actions based on the same nucleus of
operative facts were filed on March 15 and April 12, 2012. All three actions were
consolidated on the present docket. Following a hearing conducted by the Court
on May 13, 2013 and based on the record in this case as of that date, on the
evidence adduced at the hearing, and on supplemental briefing filed by the
plaintiff on May 17, 2013 (see docket entry numbers 55 and 56), the Court finds
the following facts. The plaintiff seeks to maintain the class action on behalf of
himself and all other persons who allegedly purchased certain common stock of
Tangoe, Inc. and had allegedly been caused damage as a result of reliance on
false and or misleading statements, including filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission issued or not corrected by Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and
Gary R. Martino acting as officers and or directors of Tangoe, Inc. The plaintiffs
were represented at the hearing by Phillip Kim of the Rosen Law Firm; Jeremy A.
Lieberman and Lesley F. Portnoy of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross LLP have also filed appearances on their behalf. Lewis Stein has retained
these two firms as co-lead counsel and has additionally retained Bruce and Henry
Elstein of Elstein and Elstein, P.C. as liaison counsel. The Rosen Law Firm is
experienced in the handling of class action securities fraud litigation, including in
the following cases in which plaintiffs received favorable outcomes, among
others: Hufnagle v. Rino Int’l Corp. et al, 2:10-cv-08695-DDP-VBK (C.D. Ca.); Rose
v. Deer Consumer Products, Inc. et al, 2:11-cv-03701-DMG-MRW (C.D. Ca.); In re
StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-cv-00177-SM (D. N.H.); Ray v.
Lundstrom et al, 8:10-cv-00199-JFB-TDT (D. Nebraska); Farrar v. Flight Safety
Tech Inc et al, 3:04-cv-01175-CFD (D. Conn.). Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP is experienced in the handling of class action securities
fraud litigation, including in the following cases in which plaintiffs received
favorable outcomes, among others: Caiafa v. Comverse Technology, Inc. et al,
1:06-cv-01825-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y.); In Re: Salomon AT&T, et al v. Salomon Smith
Barney, et al, 1:02-cv-06801-GEL (S.D.N.Y.); In re: Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.
Securities Litigation, 2:08-cv-01821-GMS (D. Ariz.). Elstein and Elstein, P.C.
likewise has civil litigation experience in Connecticut’s state and federal courts
and experience in the handling of class action securities fraud litigation,
including in Strougo v. Phoenix Companies, Inc. et al, 3:13-cv-00547-RNC (as
liaison counsel, with Pomerantz as lead counsel), currently pending in the District
of Connecticut. Lewis Stein is the only plaintiff seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff, and no other law firms have moved for appointment as lead counsel.
The Court appoints The Rosen Law Firm and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as co-lead counsel and Elstein and Elstein, P.C. as
The Court further finds that Lewis Stein is the only movant for lead plaintiff
before the Court, has the largest financial interest of the movants before the
Court by virtue of his sole motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and his
investment of approximately $9,000 in his purchase of the common stock of
Tangoe, Inc. (which counsel represents is the largest financial loss of any class
member of which counsel is aware), and has vigorously pursued the interests of
the class by moving for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Court also finds that
there is no indication that the proposed lead plaintiff’s interests are not
coexistent with or that they are or in the future could be antagonistic to the
interests of the proposed class members. On the basis of the foregoing factual
findings, the Court concludes that Lewis Stein satisfies the criteria of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a)(4) in that he has established that he would fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the proposed class and vigorously litigate the case fairly and
adequately on behalf of all class members. Accordingly, the Court appoints
Lewis Stein as Lead Plaintiff initially for the purpose of proposing lead counsel,
thereafter pursuing class certification and if a class is certified representing the
interests of the class.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: August 19, 20113
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?