Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation

N.D. New York

Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation

DecidedSeptember 28, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00764

StatusUnknown

This text of Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation (Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation, (N.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT C. ASHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-764 V. (AMN/DJS) ARROW FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge ORDER

This is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act. Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), Plaintiff now seeks an order appointing him as lead plaintiff in this case and the appointment of lead counsel. Dkt. No. 5. No opposition has been filed. See Dkt. No. 8. The PSLRA specifically calls for the appointment of a designated lead plaintiff. U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The statute also creates a rebuttal presumption that the individual who filed the Complaint should, when other conditions are satisfied, be appointed lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Here, Robert Ashe, the named Plaintiff, seeks appointment as lead plaintiff. Dkt. No. 5. Having reviewed the statutory requirements, the Court concludes that at this stage of the litigation he has satisfied the fairly minimal requirements for appointment as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. See, e.g., _l-

In re KIT Digital, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 F.R.D. 441, 444-446 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). He commenced this action and seeks appointment as lead plaintiff, he has alleged a financial loss that is greater than any other purported class member of which the Court is currently aware, and has made the required prima facie showing that he meets the requirements

5 under FED. R. CIV. P. 23. Aude v. Kobe Steel, Ltd., 2018 WL 1634872, at *3 (S.D.NLY. Apr. 4, 2018). Under the PSLRA courts generally defer to the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel. Parot v. Clarivate Plc, 2022 WL 1568735, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court finds that on the record before it, Plaintiff's stated choice for counsel, Pomerantz LLP, is well qualified to serve as lead counsel here. See, Kukkadapu v. Embraer S.A., 2016 WL 6820734, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016); Jn

re Petrobras Sec. Litig., 104 F. Supp. 3d 618, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Dkt. No. 5-8. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Motion to Appoint Robert C. Ashe as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2023 Albany, New York fo Lf eigd az US-Magistrate Judge _2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT C. ASHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-764 V. (AMN/DJS) ARROW FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge ORDER

This is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act. Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), Plaintiff now seeks an order appointing him as lead plaintiff in this case and the appointment of lead counsel. Dkt. No. 5. No opposition has been filed. See Dkt. No. 8. The PSLRA specifically calls for the appointment of a designated lead plaintiff. U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The statute also creates a rebuttal presumption that the individual who filed the Complaint should, when other conditions are satisfied, be appointed lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Here, Robert Ashe, the named Plaintiff, seeks appointment as lead plaintiff. Dkt. No. 5. Having reviewed the statutory requirements, the Court concludes that at this stage of the litigation he has satisfied the fairly minimal requirements for appointment as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. See, e.g., _l-

In re KIT Digital, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 F.R.D. 441, 444-446 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). He commenced this action and seeks appointment as lead plaintiff, he has alleged a financial loss that is greater than any other purported class member of which the Court is currently aware, and has made the required prima facie showing that he meets the requirements

5 under FED. R. CIV. P. 23. Aude v. Kobe Steel, Ltd., 2018 WL 1634872, at *3 (S.D.NLY. Apr. 4, 2018). Under the PSLRA courts generally defer to the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel. Parot v. Clarivate Plc, 2022 WL 1568735, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court finds that on the record before it, Plaintiff's stated choice for counsel, Pomerantz LLP, is well qualified to serve as lead counsel here. See, Kukkadapu v. Embraer S.A., 2016 WL 6820734, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016); Jn

re Petrobras Sec. Litig., 104 F. Supp. 3d 618, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Dkt. No. 5-8. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Motion to Appoint Robert C. Ashe as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2023 Albany, New York fo Lf eigd az US-Magistrate Judge _2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ashe v. Arrow Financial Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashe-v-arrow-financial-corporation-nynd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack