The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard J. Holwell, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently before this Court are two related securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited ("Royal Group"), a Canadian corporation, and several of its key officers and directors during the putative class period (collectively, "defendants"). Both actions allege that between February 24, 2000 and October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "class period"), defendants carried out a fraudulent scheme, through the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements and reports, to defraud the investing public, artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Royal Group's publicly traded securities, thereby causing plaintiffs and other similarly situated investors to purchase Royal Group's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
The first-filed of these actions, captioned Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, 06 Civ. 0822 (RJH) was filed February 2, 2006. The second-filed action, captioned Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, 06 0876 (KMW) was filed February 3, 2006. By motion dated April 3, 2006, plaintiffs Phillip Zipin, Marcia B. Snow, and Lewis R. Messinger (the "Snow Group") moved the Court for an order to consolidate the two above-captioned and related actions, to appoint the Snow Group as lead plaintiff for the putative class pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and to approve their selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") as co-lead counsel.
The Snow Group seeks to serve as lead plaintiff on behalf of themselves and (1) all United States citizens and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Royal Group on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") or the Toronto Stock Exchange and (2) all foreign persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Royal Group on the NYSE, during the class period, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
A prior related consolidated action against the same defendants named here but brought by Canadian plaintiffs, and arising out of the same course of alleged conduct, was dismissed without prejudice on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of a Canadian forum in an opinion issued by the Hon. Harold Baer, Jr. See In re Royal Group Techs. Sec. Litig., 04 Civ. 9809 (HB), 2005 WL 3105341 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2005). At a status conference held in this matter on June 22, 2006, defendants indicated that one of the lead plaintiffs in the former action, Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan, has since filed a similar complaint in Canada alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. Defendants further represented that they intend to file consolidated motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in this action based on, inter alia, forum non conveniens, subject matter jurisdiction, preclusion, statute of limitations, and personal jurisdiction (as to individual defendants) grounds. At this stage, it is inappropriate to consider any of these potential bases for dismissal, and only the pending motion to consolidate and appoint lead plaintiff and counsel will be addressed below.
I. Consolidation of Actions
Because the above-captioned actions arise out of or are related to the same allegations, the Court hereby consolidates the aforementioned cases for all purposes, as stated on the record at a conference held June 22, 2006. The caption of this consolidated action shall be hereinafter referred to as "In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation." All relevant documents and submissions shall be maintained as one file under Master File No. 06 Civ. 0822 (RJH). Any other actions now pending or later filed in this district that arise out of or are related to the same facts as alleged in the above cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, if and when they are brought to this Court's attention, whether by application to the Court or otherwise.
II. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
A. The Notice and Filing Requirements under the PSLRA
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (codified in part at 15 §§ 77-z-1, 78u-4), sets forth the procedures governing the appointment of lead plaintiff in "each action arising under the [Securities and Exchange Act of 1934] that is brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(1). As an initial matter, the PSLRA requires the plaintiff in the initial action to cause a notice to be published in a national, business-oriented publication within 20 days of filing the complaint. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice must inform members of the purported class of (1) the details and pendency of the action; and (2) their right to seek appointment as lead plaintiff within sixty days after the date on which notice is published. Id. Within ninety days after the publication of such notice, a court shall consider any motion made by any class member, regardless of whether they are individually named as plaintiffs in any one action, and shall appoint the "most adequate plaintiff' as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. §78u4(a)(3)(B)(i)ù
In connection with the filing of the Vanamringe action, noticed was published by Lerach Coughlin and Labaton Sucharow on January 27, 2006, as amended by a notice published on February 8, 2006. The notice advised purchasers of Royal Group stock of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, the purported class action period and the right of any class member to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Accordingly, the notice satisfied the requirements of the PSLRA and triggered the sixty-day period in which class members could move to be appointed as lead plaintiff.
Only the Snow Group has filed such an application, and they did so within the sixty-day period. Accordingly, only the Snow Group has satisfied the ...