In these related cases, plaintiffs bring securities class actions on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of ShengdaTech, Inc. ("ShengdaTech") during certain periods of time. Plaintiffs allege that ShengdaTech and three of its senior executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs Marlon Fund SICA V PLC ("Marlon"), Thomas Loomis ("Loomis"), Shula Shada and Aliza Peretz ("the Shadas"), and Edward Schaul and Donald Yaw ("Schaul and Yaw") now move to consolidate the various actions. In addition, each set of plaintiffs moves for appointment as lead plaintiff in the resulting action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Lastly, they seek approval of their respective counsel as lead counsel for the consolidated action.
The court grants the motion to consolidate, appoints plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw as lead plaintiffs, and approves their selection of Robbins, Geller, Rudman, and Dowd, L.L.P. ("Robbins Geller") as lead counsel.
Between 2008 and 2011, the common stock of ShengdaTech, a Nevada corporation based in Shanghai, China, was traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market. In this time, ShengdaTech filed numerous quarterly and annual earnings reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and issued many public statements related to its earnings.
On March 15, 2011, ShengdaTech announced the formation of a special committee of its Board of Directors to investigate financial discrepancies unearthed by its auditors during their examination of records for the year ending on December 31, 2010. It also announced the hiring of independent counsel to initiate the investigation and delayed its required disclosures to the SEC. As a result, trading in ShengdaTech's common stock was suspended, and NASDAQ ultimately delisted the company on April 29, 2011.
On May 5, 2011, ShengdaTech notified the SEC that its longtime auditor, KPMG, had resigned due to the failure of ShengdaTech's board of directors to take appropriate remedial actions to address the fiscal discrepancies KPMG had previously identified. In the course of its resignation, KPMG also declared that ShengdaTech should take action to prevent future reliance on KPMG's audit reports for the years 2008 and 2009.
On March 18, 2011, plaintiff James Thomas Turner filed the first class action in this court against ShengdaTech and its senior executives on behalf of all purchasers of ShengdaTech common stock from March 15, 2010 to March 1, 2011. The complaint alleges that ShengdaTech and its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by materially misrepresenting the company's financial position in regulatory filings and public statements, thus artificially inflating the value of the company's common stock and causing losses to purchasers who bought and held the stock before the revelation of ShengdaTech's financial irregularities. On March 18, 2011, plaintiff's counsel Robbins Geller, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), published notice of the Turner action in Business Wire. This notice specified that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II), persons wishing to serve as lead plaintiff were to so move in this action within sixty days of the published notice.
During the subsequent sixty-day period, three related class actions were filed in this court: Turner v. ShengdaTech, Inc. (11 Civ. 1918); Marlon Fund SICA V PLC v ShengdaTech, Inc. (11 Civ. 1996); Mathes v. ShengdaTech, Inc. (11 Civ. 2064); and Yaw v. ShengdaTech, Inc. (11 Civ. 3325). The last of these- the action instituted on May 17, 2011 by plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw through Robbins Geller-alleges a class period of May 7, 2008 through March 15, 2011. On that same day, plaintiffs Marlon, Loomis, the Shadas, and Yaw and Schaul moved for consolidation and for appointment of lead plaintiff. In addition, the Shadas argue that the court-unless it appoints them lead plaintiff-should stay the consolidated action on the ground that the expansion of the class period in the Yaw complaint is so substantial as to require a second round of notice under the PSLRA followed by another sixty-day waiting period to permit other potential lead plaintiffs to come forward.
Motion to Consolidate Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(d) provides that the court may consolidate questions that involve common questions of law and fact. It is clear that the actions currently before the court should be consolidated, as each employs the same facts to make substantially similar allegations. While the Schaul and Yaw complaint reaches a longer class period, it employs the same legal theories that underlie the suits with a shorter class period.
As already described, the Shadas argue that the Schaul and Yaw complaint so expands the class period of the first-filed case as to warrant a stay in this ...