Moomjy v. HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

JASON MOOMJY,

9

Plaintiff,
Case No. C11-0726RSL

10
11
12

v.
HQ SUSTAINABLE MARITIME
INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,

ORDER REGARDING
APPOINTMENT OF LEAD
PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL

Defendants.

13
14
15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

This matter comes before the Court on the motions of six different plaintiffs to be

17
18
19
20
21
22

appointed as lead plaintiff in these proceedings. This action was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of HQ Sustainable
Maritime Industries, Inc. between May 11, 2009 and April 1, 2011 (the “Class Period”),
pursuant to §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.1

23
24
25
26

1

Because this matter can be decided based on the parties’ filings and the balance
of the record, their request for oral argument is denied.
ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 1

Defendant describes itself as an “integrated aquaculture and aquatic product

1
2

processing company, with operations based in the environmentally pristine island

3

province of Hainan, in China’s South Sea.” The complaint alleges that defendants failed

4

to disclose material facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and

5

prospects. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), plaintiff published a notice of

6

pendency of the action over the Business Wire on April 28, 2011. The Court finds, and

7

no party disputes, that the statutory procedural requirements have been met.

8
9
10

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Lead Plaintiff.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(A), six timely applications to be appointed

11

lead plaintiff were filed. At this stage, the Court considers “the losses allegedly suffered

12

by the various plaintiffs” before selecting a “presumptively most adequate plaintiff.” In

13

re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). The presumptively most adequate

14

plaintiff is the one who has “the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class

15

and who otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.” Id. Thereafter, the Court

16

must “give other plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff’s

17

showing that it satisfies Rule 23’s adequacy and typicality requirements.”

18

The Cavanaugh court explained, “So long as the plaintiff with the largest losses satisfies

19

the typicality and adequacy requirements, he is entitled to lead plaintiff status, even if the

20

district court is convinced that some other plaintiff would do a better job.” Id. at 732.

21

Id. at 730.

The Trigon Emerging Agri-Sector Fund (the “Trigon Fund”) alleges losses of

22

$1,476,735 million, which are undisputedly significantly greater than the losses suffered

23

by any of the other proposed lead plaintiffs. The Trigon Fund also satisfies the adequacy

24

and typicality requirements of Rule 23. The claims of the Trigon Fund are typical of the

25
26

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 2

1

claims of other plaintiffs in the proposed class. It alleges that its losses occurred as a

2

result of the same wrongful conduct alleged by other plaintiffs. Its claims are based on

3

the same legal theories as other plaintiffs’ claims.

4

It also appears that the Trigon Fund will fairly and adequately protect the interests

5

of all class members. The Trigon Fund’s certification shows that its representative has

6

reviewed the complaint, adopted the allegations therein, and is willing to serve as the

7

representative of the class. Although the fund is based in Estonia, the fund manager

8

speaks English fluently, travels to the United States, and is willing to do so again to aid

9

the Trigon Fund in fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to the class. Certainly, the Trigon

10

Fund’s geographic remoteness might lead to some inconvenience in scheduling and

11

communication, but those difficulties can be minimized through the use of modern travel

12

and communications technology. There is no evidence that the Trigon Fund’s interests

13

are in conflict with those of other class members. Given its large loss, the Trigon Fund

14

has a sufficient interest in the outcome of the litigation to ensure vigorous advocacy.

15

The Trigon Fund has retained competent and adequate counsel. The Court finds that the

16

Trigon Fund satisfies the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). For these

17

reasons, the Court affords the Trigon Fund a rebutable presumption that it is the most

18

adequate plaintiff to prosecute the action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb).

19

The presumption can be rebutted “only upon proof by a member of the purported

20

plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff – (aa) will not fairly and

21

adequately protect the interests of the class; or (bb) is subject to unique defenses that

22

render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-

23

4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Three of the proposed lead plaintiffs have endorsed the Trigon Fund

24

as lead plaintiff. Dkt. ## 30, 31, 35. Only one challenges the appointment: Carl Schatz

25
26

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 3

1

argues that the Trigon Fund should not be appointed because it is a resident of Estonia.

2

As such, Schatz argues, it is subject to a unique defense: defendants may contest the

3

Trigon Fund’s ability to serve as lead plaintiff and its inclusion in the class because, “as

4

a fund based in and subject to the laws of Estonia, it is extremely likely that the Trigon

5

Fund would not be subject to res judicata for any judgment in favor of the Defendants in

6

this case.” Schatz’s Reply at p. 2. However, unlike in some of the cases on which

7

Schatz relies, the Trigon Fund is not subject to a defense of lack of subject matter

8

jurisdiction because it purchased its shares on the AMEX, an American exchange. See,

9

e.g., Marsden v. Select Med. Corp., 246 F.R.D. 480, 486 (E.D. Pa. 2007); In re Royal

10

Ahold N.V. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 219 F.R.D. 343, 351 (D. Md. 2003) (finding that the

11

court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of foreign investors who purchased

12

the securities on a domestic exchange).

13

Moreover, courts “routinely appoint . . . foreign investors . . . as lead plaintiffs.”

14

In re Tronox, Inc. Sec. Litig., 262 F.R.D. 338, 343-44 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); see also In re

15

Molson Coors Brewing Co. Sec. Litig., 233 F.R.D. 147, 151 (D. Del. 2005). Although

16

Schatz argues that an Estonian court might not recognize the judgment, res judicata

17

concerns are “speculative” and “insufficient to rebut the presumption that [a foreign

18

investor] is the most adequate plaintiff.” Mohanty v. Bigband Networks, Inc., 2008 U.S.

19

Dist. LEXIS 32764 at *20-24 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (appointing a lead plaintiff from

20

the Republic of Cypress); Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1139

21

(C.D. Cal. 1999) (explaining that res judicata is “not an issue with respect to the

22

selection of Lead Plaintiffs, since those persons will clearly be bound by the judgment of

23

the court.”). Similarly, in this case, the Trigon Fund has filed a statement agreeing to be

24

bound by any judgment by this Court. Declaration of Heiti Riisberg, (Dkt. #47-2) at ¶ 9

25
26

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 4

1

(“The Fund also understands that, if appointed Lead Plaintiff in this action, it will be

2

subject to the jurisdiction of the Court and will be bound by all rulings of the Court,

3

including any judgments.”). That statement binds the Trigon Fund.

4

In an attempt to rebut the presumption, Schatz has filed a declaration from a

5

purported legal expert from Estonia, who opines that because Estonia does not allow

6

class actions for these types of claims, “a class action judgment in the pending matter

7

would most probably not be recognized in Estonia, and hence this would not prevent

8

brining a claim in Estonia.” Declaration of Liina Linsi, (Dkt. #37) at ¶ 8. That

9

declaration is unrebutted. However, the declarant also states that Estonia does recognize

10

foreign judgments. Id. at ¶ 7. Taken together, the statements suggest that an Estonian

11

court would recognize the judgment as to the Trigon Fund, but not as to any other

12

Estonian investors. The failure to bind other Estonians is largely irrelevant at this point

13

because (1) the declaration does not suggest that this Court could not craft a judgment

14

that would at least bind the Trigon Fund in Estonia, (2) there is no evidence that other

15

Estonian investors exist, and (3) the possible lack of preclusive effect as to other

16

Estonian investors is an issue regardless of the identity of the lead plaintiff.

17

Furthermore, even if the judgment would not bind the Trigon Fund in an Estonian court,

18

the Trigon Fund has agreed to be bound by any judgment.

19

Finally, Schatz notes that some courts have refused to certify classes that included

20

foreign investors from countries that were unlikely to recognize a judgment. Those

21

decisions, however, are based on whether a class that included foreign investors is a

22

superior method of adjudication. See, e.g., In re Vivendi Univ., S.A. Sec. Litig., 242

23

F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding class members from countries that were unlikely

24

to recognize the judgment). Because the lead plaintiff inquiry focuses on typicality and

25
26

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 5

1

adequacy, superiority is beyond the scope of this motion. The Court does not, however,

2

ignore the implications of the Trigon Fund’s residency, and it would not appoint a lead

3

plaintiff who would likely be excluded from the class later, leaving the class without a

4

representative. See, e.g., Borochoff v. Glaxosmithkline PLC, 246 F.R.D. 201, 205

5

(S.D.N.Y. 2007) (declining to appoint as lead plaintiff a German institutional investor

6

that purchased the securities on a foreign exchange because doing so would be

7

“improvident” in light of the “substantial” arguments for its exclusion from the class).

8

That possibility, however, is speculative and appears unlikely in this case in light of the

9

fact that the Trigon Fund purchased its shares domestically, it has agreed to be bound,

10

Estonia recognizes foreign judgments, and neither Schatz nor its Estonian declarant

11

argues that the Trigon Fund could, as a practical matter, pursue its claim in Estonia.2

12

See, e.g., Marsden v. Select Med. Corp., 246 F.R.D. 480, 486 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

13

Accordingly, Schatz has not rebutted the presumption, and the Court appoints the Trigon

14

Fund lead plaintiff.

15

B.

Lead Counsel.

16

The PSLRA provides that once the lead plaintiff is selected, it “shall, subject to

17

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

18

§ 78u- 4(a)(3)(B)(v). The decision to approve counsel selected by the lead plaintiff is a

19

matter within the discretion of the district court. See In re Milestone Scientific Sec.

20

Litig., 187 F.R.D. 165, 176 (D.N.J. 1999). The exercise of such discretion necessitates

21

an inquiry into the appropriateness of the appointment of more than one law firm and an

22
23
24
25
26

2

Schatz argues that significant resources will be diverted later in this litigation
regarding whether the Trigon Fund should be excluded from the class. However, that
issue might arise regardless of whether the Trigon Fund is appointed lead plaintiff.
ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 6

1

independent evaluation of, among other considerations, the effectiveness of the proposed

2

counsel structure to ensure the protection of the class. Vincelli v. Nat’l Home Health

3

Care Corp., 112 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1315 (M.D. Fla. 2000). A court should approve the

4

lead plaintiff’s choice “based solely on that counsel’s competence, experience, and

5

resources.” In re MicroStrategy Inc. Sec. Litig., 110 F. Supp. 2d 427, 438 (E.D. Va.

6

2000).

7

The Trigon Fund has selected as its lead counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,

8

PLLC (“Cohen Milstein”) based on its “understanding that the firm has extensive

9

experience prosecuting securities class actions and has had success litigating against

10

other companies with operations in China.” Declaration of Heiti Riisberg, (Dkt. #17-3)

11

at ¶ 5. During the past few years, the Cohen Milstein firm has been appointed to serve as

12

lead counsel in two other securities class actions in this district. In re Washington

13

Mutual Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litig., Case No. C09-0037MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 23,

14

2009); Fouad v. Isilon Sys., Inc., Case No. C07-1764MJP (W.D. Wash. Feb. 4, 2008).

15

The firm has also handled other complex matters before this Court. See, e.g., Nouri v.

16

Boeing, C099-1227RSL. Based on those cases and the other evidence submitted in

17

support of this motion, the Court finds that Cohen Milstein has previous experience

18

litigating securities class actions and the attorneys are competent to litigate the current

19

action.

20

The Trigon Fund has also selected Keller Rohrback LLP as liaison counsel.

21

Although there is no provision in the PSLRA for the appointment of “liaison counsel,”

22

the statute does not expressly prohibit the lead plaintiff from selecting more than one law

23

firm to represent the class. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Furthermore, this Court’s

24

local rules require the addition of local counsel, as Cohen Milstein lacks an office in this

25
26

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 7

1

district. The Court finds that Keller Rohrback is experienced in this area and competent

2

to litigate this action. No party disputes the qualifications of either firm. Accordingly,

3

the Court approves the choice of Cohen Milstein as lead counsel and Keller Rohrback as

4

liaison counsel.

5
6

III. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion of the Trigon

7

Fund for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel (Dkt. #16). The Court DENIES

8

the motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel filed by Edward Gutman

9

(Dkt. #14), Carl Schatz (Dkt. #18), Maric Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (Dkt. #20), Steve

10

Purcell (Dkt. #22) and Asbestos Workers, Local 14 Pension Fund (Dkt. #25).

11
12

Dated this 12th day of September, 2011.

13

A

14
15

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT
OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL - 8