Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC et al

Filing 65

Vacated as per Judge's Order dated 9/14/2016, Doc. # 67 OPINION AND ORDER: re: #60 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Julie Lemond, Ralph Langstadt. Based on these considerations, and the absence of opposition from Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The action is certified as a class action as to all claims and defenses at issue in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; The "Class" of Plaintiffs is defined as follows: All persons who purchased Och-Ziff securities between February 9, 2012 and August 22, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); Excluded from the Class are Defendants, current and former officers and directors of Och-Ziff, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest; Lead Plaintiffs Ralph Langstadt and Julie Lemond (collectively "Plaintiffs") are appointed as the representatives of the Class; Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. are appointed as co-lead counsel for the Class for all purposes in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 60. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 9/14/2016) (ama) Modified on 9/14/2016 (ama).

Case 1:14-cv-03251-JPO Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
ARTHUR MENALDI, individually and on
:
behalf of all others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
:
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
GROUP LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

14-CV-3251 (JPO)
OPINION AND ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
On August 9, 2016, lead Plaintiffs Ralph Langstadt and Julie Lemond (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) moved, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to certify the following Class:
All persons other than [D]efendants who purchased Och-Ziff securities between February
9, 2012 and August 22, 2014, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), excluding
Defendants, current and former officers and directors of Och-Ziff, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any
entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
(Dkt. No.61 at 1.) Plaintiffs further moved that they be appointed representatives of the Class
and that the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. be appointed as co-lead
counsel for the Class. (Id.) To date, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group, LLC (“Och-Ziff”),
Daniel S. Och, and Joel M. Frank (collectively “Defendants”) have not filed a response.
Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore deemed to be unopposed.
Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court concludes that class certification is
appropriate here. Plaintiffs centrally allege that, between February 2012 and August 2014,
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading investors about an

1

Case 1:14-cv-03251-JPO Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 4

investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice into
Och-Ziff’s investments in Africa. (See Dkt. No. 17 (“Compl.”).) Securities claims like this one
are generally suited to class action litigation. See In re Indep. Energy Holdings PLC Sec. Litig.,
210 F.R.D. 476, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 (1979)
(noting “class relief for [securities] claims . . . is peculiarly appropriate”). Plaintiffs have made a
strong showing that the same is true here. 1
Plaintiffs’ submissions make clear that this action satisfies all the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.
First, the proposed Class is sufficiently numerous, per Rule 23(a)(1), to render joinder of
all members impracticable. Plaintiffs aver that, in the relevant period, Och-Ziff issued between
139.8 million and 171.7 million shares and more than 641 million shares were bought and sold.
(See Dkt. 61 at 8.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs believe there are “many hundreds, and likely
thousands, of geographically dispersed members of the proposed Class.” (Id.)
Second, under Rule 23(a)(2), this case presents common questions of law and fact as to
all members of the Class. Plaintiffs’ claim involves injury caused by a common course of
misconduct—the alleged “issuance of knowingly false and misleading material statements and
omissions” by Defendants during the relevant period—and the law and facts at issue are thus
common for each member of the putative Class. (Dkt. No. 61 at 1-2.)

1

Even in the absence of such a strong showing, courts in this District have
construed class certification standards especially liberally in similar securities litigation. See In
re Indep. Energy Holdings PLC Sec. Litig., 210 F.R.D. 476, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[W]hen a
court is in doubt as to whether or not to certify a class action [where plaintiffs seek redress for
violations of securities laws], the court should err in favor of allowing the class to go forward.”).
2

Case 1:14-cv-03251-JPO Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 4

Third, pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), the claims and defenses of the proposed representatives
of the Class are typical of the claims and defenses for all Class members. To wit, the proposed
representatives purchased Och-Ziff common stock during the relevant period and received
Defendants’ statements regarding the stock. (Dkt. No. 61 at 10-11.) Moreover, Defendants’
state of mind at the time of issuance is the same with respect to the representatives as to all
potential members of the Class, and the stock’s alleged artificial inflation during the period
applies equally to the representatives and the putative Class. (Id. at 11.)
Fourth, under Rule 23(a)(4), the proposed Class representatives have sufficiently
demonstrated that they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Further,
proposed co-lead counsel have adequately shown that they have experience with similar class
actions and will adequately represent the Class’s interests. (See Dkt. No. 62-4; Dkt. No. 62-5.)
Plaintiffs also meet the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). As discussed
above, the questions of law and fact are common to the Class. Moreover, each member of the
putative Class suffered “relatively small” losses, counseling in favor of class treatment for
fairness and efficiency. (Dkt. No. 61 at 2.)
Based on these considerations, and the absence of opposition from Defendants, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The action is certified as a class action as to all claims and defenses at issue in the

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure;
2.

The “Class” of Plaintiffs is defined as follows: All persons who purchased Och-

Ziff securities between February 9, 2012 and August 22, 2014, both dates inclusive (the “Class
Period”);

3

Case 1:14-cv-03251-JPO Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 4

3.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, current and former officers and directors

of Och-Ziff, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest;
4.

Lead Plaintiffs Ralph Langstadt and Julie Lemond (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are

appointed as the representatives of the Class;
5.

Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. are appointed as co-lead counsel

for the Class for all purposes in this action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 60.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016
New York, New York

____________________________________
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

4