Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Comverse Technology

September 27, 2006

IN RE COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.: SECURITIES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Before the Court are three competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this consolidated action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") of 1995, Pub. L. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (1995). Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund ("P&P") seeks to be appointed lead plaintiff, and to have their counsel, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin"), appointed as lead counsel. Leumi-Pia Trust Fund Management Co. Ltd. ("Leumi-Pia") and Doris, Jacques, and Roger Gould (the "Goulds") seek lead plaintiff status, and for their counsel, Labaton Sucharow & Fudoff LLP and Paskowitz & Associates ("Labaton/Paskowitz"), to be appointed as co-lead counsel. Menorah Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mivitachim Pension Funds Ltd. (collectively, the "Menorah Group"), also seek lead plaintiff status and to have their counsel, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP ("Pomerantz Haudek"), appointed as lead counsel. For the reasons which follow, P&P and Lerach Couglin are appointed to lead this consolidated action.

DISCUSSION*fn1

I. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

A. Procedure under the PSLRA

With respect to the appointment of lead plaintiff, the PSLRA requires that the court "shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be the most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. . ." See15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). In making this determination, the court is guided by the "rebuttable presumption . . . that the most adequate plaintiff . . . is the person or group of persons that-(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice [that is published no later than twenty days after the complaint is filed] . . .; (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The presumption may be rebutted "only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff- (aa) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or (bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class." See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

The PSLRA does not provide any guidance concerning the method of calculating which plaintiff has the "largest financial interest." Since the PSLRA was enacted, however, the courts have developed a four-factor test in which the following are considered: (1) the number of shares purchased during the class period; (2) the number of shares retained at the end of the class period; (3) the total net funds expended during the class period; and (4) the approximate loss suffered during the class period. In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., No. 97-CV-2715,1997 WL 461036, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug.11, 1997). Most courts consider approximate loss suffered during the class period to be the most important factor. E.g., Weiss v. Friedman, No. 05 Civ. 4617 (RJH), 2006 WL 197036, * 3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2006); In re Vicuron Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., 225 F.R.D. 508, 510-11 (E.D. Pa. 2004).

B. Application to the Present Motions

1. Timely Filed Motion

It is undisputed that each proposed lead plaintiff has filed their motion within 60 days of the notice required by the PSLRA. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). Thus, the three movants have satisfied the first requirement for determining the "most adequate plaintiff." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa). This provision, therefore, does not assist the court in making its determination of whom should be appointed lead plaintiff for the consolidated class action.

2. Largest Financial Interest

With one significant exception discussed below, the application of the four-factor test is not in serious dispute, and can be summarized by the following table:

MovantShares PurchasedShares RetainedNet Funds ExpendedApproximate FIFO LossApproximate LIFO Loss*fn2 P&P534,471172,156$6,787,210.50$2,933,643.21$2,933,643.21 Leumi-Pia/Goulds176,74086,840$2,365,911.23$506,895.18$404,262.60 Menorah Group172,500172,500$4,203,752.50$343,202.50$343,202.50

As shown above, P&P has the greatest financial interest as measured by three of the four factors -- shares purchased, net funds expended, and approximate loss, and is in a virtual tie with the Menorah Group in the fourth -- shares retained. Thus, application of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.