The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shirley Wohl Kram United States District Judge
SHIRLEY WOHL KRAM, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court is a class action complaint alleging that Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. ("GCA" or the "Company"), several of its officers and directors, its co-lead underwriters, and two institutional shareholders (collectively, the "defendants") committed securities fraud. After initially filing separate motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and appointment of lead counsel, two movants now stipulate and ask the Court to appoint City of Richmond Retirement System ("Richmond") as lead plaintiff, and to designate Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. ("Grant & Eisenhofer") as lead counsel. For the reasons that follow, the Court approves the stipulation.
On April 11, 2008, plaintiff Robert Lowinger ("Lowinger") filed a complaint on behalf of individuals who purchased GCA common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and continued to hold such stock on November 14, 2007. (Compl. ¶ 16.) The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially misleading statements relating to the IPO, which took place on September 22, 2005. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The complaint seeks recovery for resulting violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"). (Compl. ¶ 2.)
On May 22, 2008, Richmond published notice on the PRNewswire of its intent to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in this litigation. (See Richmond's Mot., Declaration of Michael J. Barry ("Barry Decl.") Ex. C.) Richmond also stated its intention to expand the proposed class to include all purchasers of GCA shares between and including September 22, 2005, and November 14, 2007, regardless of whether the shares were traceable to the IPO. (Barry Decl. Ex. C.) Furthermore, Richmond stated in its notice that, if it is appointed as lead plaintiff, it will file a consolidated class action complaint that alleges both the 1933 Act violations enumerated by Lowinger and violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"). (Barry Decl. Ex. C.)
On June 10, 2008, Richmond filed a competing motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, see 08 Cv. 3516 (SWK), Dkt. No. 16, as well as its own class action complaint, which contains claims of fraud stemming from (1) the IPO; (2) a Secondary Offering, which took place on May 24, 2006; and (3) various other materially misleading statements in publications and filings allegedly made or controlled by the defendants. See City of Richmond Ret. Sys. v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., 08 Cv. 5317 (SWK), Dkt. No. 1. On June 19, 2008, the two movants filed a stipulation stating that Richmond should serve as lead plaintiff in this litigation (the "Lead Plaintiff Stipulation").
II. THE TWO RELATED CLASS ACTIONS ARE HEREBY CONSOLIDATED
It is well settled that a court, either upon motion or sua sponte,*fn1 may consolidate actions that involve common issues of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). "[C]onsolidation is particularly appropriate in the context of securities class actions if the complaints are based on the same public statements and reports." Glauser v. EVCI Ctr. Colls. Holding Corp., 236 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Werner v. Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke, 797 F. Supp. 1196, 1211 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
The two complaints under consideration were filed on behalf of individuals who purchased GCA securities between and including September 22, 2005, and November 14, 2007. The complaints rest their claims of fraud on essentially identical public statements and reports, and seek recovery for resulting violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the 1933 Act. Moreover, there is no indication that any of the defendants will be prejudiced by consolidation. Finally, Richmond's more expansive definition of the class, allegations of additional securities law violations, and inclusion of additional defendants do not make consolidation of the two cases inappropriate. See Pinkowitz v. Elan Corp., 02 Cv. 865 (WK), 2002 WL 1822118, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2002); Skwortz v. Crayfish Co., 00 Cv. 6766 (DAB), 2001 WL 1160745, at *2 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2001); In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); Werner, 797 F. Supp. at 1211. The Court therefore concludes that consolidation is warranted and consolidates the two class actions, Lowinger v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., 08 Cv. 3516 (SWK), and City of Richmond Retirement System v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., 08 Cv. 5317 (SWK), under the caption "In re Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation." All relevant filings and submissions shall be maintained as one Master File under No. 08 Cv. 3516 (SWK).
Furthermore, any action involving a common question of law or fact subsequently filed in or transferred to this District shall be consolidated for all purposes under the Master File Number assigned to the consolidated action. A party objecting to the consolidation of any such new case may move for relief from this Order within ten (10) days after the date upon which a copy of this Order or the order of assignment is mailed to counsel for such party.
III. RICHMOND IS HEREBY APPOINTED AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") specifies the basic procedure for requesting appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action suit arising under the 1934 Act. In pertinent part, the PSLRA provides that the plaintiff who files the initial complaint must issue notice to investors in a widely circulated, national, business-oriented publication or wire service, advising potential class members of the pendency of the lawsuit and the nature of the allegations, the purported class period, and putative class members' right to seek appointment as lead plaintiff within sixty days of the publication of the notice. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A).
The PSLRA's requirements are satisfied in the instant case. Specifically, counsel for Lowinger filed legally sufficient notice on the Business Wire on the same date as the filing of the complaint. (See Lowinger's Mot., Declaration of Philip T. Taylor ("Taylor Decl.") Ex. A.) See Bassin v. deCODE Genetics, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 313, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (indicating that Business Wire is "a national, business oriented newswire service, as required by 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)"). Moreover, ...