1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH Case No.: 20cv565 GPC(DEB) POLICE OFFICERS’ AND 12 FIREFIGHTERS’ PERSONNEL ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF 13 RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 itself and all others similarly situated, JOINT FUNDS FOR APPOINTMENT 14 AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND Plaintiff, 15 APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF v. LEAD COUNSEL 16
ANAPTYSBIO, INC., HAMZA SURIA, 17 [Dkt. No. 24.] MARCO LONDEI, and DOMINIC G. 18 PISCITELLI,, 19 Defendant. 20
21 Before the Court is Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds’ unopposed motion for 22 appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. Defendants 23 responded that it takes no position on which movant should be appointed as lead plaintiff 24 or which law firm should be appointed as lead counsel. (Dkt. No. 28.) On June 19, 2020, 25 Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds (“Iron Workers”) filed a notice indicating that its 26 motion was unopposed and should be granted. (Dkt. No. 29.) Based on the reasoning 27 below, the Court GRANTS Iron Workers’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and 28 approval of its selection of lead counsel. 1 Background 2 On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and 3 Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust, through its counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & 4 Grossmann LLP filed a securities class action complaint against Defendant AnaptysBio, 5 Inc. (“AnaptysBio”) and certain of its current and former senior executives (collectively 6 “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) The Complaint claims that between October 10, 7 2017 and November 7, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), Defendants defrauded 8 investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 9 78t(a)), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated 10 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the 11 Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the purported efficacy of its lead drug candidate, 12 etokimab, a drug intended for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases. AnaptysBio 13 investors, including Iron Workers, incurred significant losses following reports that 14 questioned the reliability of the Company’s reported trial data for etokimab and after the 15 Company ultimately announced that etokimab had failed to meet its primary endpoint in a 16 trial evaluating the drug’s efficacy in treating patients with moderate-to-severe atopic 17 dermatitis. (Id.) 18 Discussion 19 A. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff 20 Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), no later than 20 21 days after filing a class action securities complaint, a private plaintiff or plaintiffs must 22 publish a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the 23 action, the claims asserted, and that any member of the purported class may move the court 24 to serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Not later than 60 days after the 25 date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the 26 court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. Id. Here, the notice of the pendency 27 of the action was filed on March 25, 2020. (Dkt. No. 24-5, Uslaner Decl., Ex. C.) 28 1 Within 90 days after publication of the notice, the Court shall consider any motion 2 made by a class member to serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B)(i). The 3 Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff “the member or members of the purported plaintiff 4 class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests 5 of class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The presumptively most adequate 6 plaintiff is the one who “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class” 7 and “otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). “In other words, the district court must 9 compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs and determine which one has the most 10 to gain from the lawsuit. It must then focus its attention on that plaintiff and determine, 11 based on the information he has provided in his pleadings and declarations, whether he 12 satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’ and ‘adequacy.’” 13 In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Movant Iron Workers claims that it has the largest financial interest in the relief 15 sought by the class as it lost about $200,000 on its purchases of 3,067 shares of 16 AnaptysBio’s stock during the Class Period. (Dkt. No. 24-3, Uslaner Decl., Ex. A; Dkt. 17 No. 24-4, Uslaner Decl., Ex. B.) Because no other movant has asserted the largest financial 18 interest in the litigation, the Court finds Iron Workers is the member with the largest 19 financial interest in the relief sought by the class.1 20 The Court also concludes that the typicality and adequacy requirements are met. 21 First, the typicality requirement is satisfied when “the presumptive lead plaintiff’s claim 22 arise[s] from the same event or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of other class 23 members and [are] based on the same legal theory.” Foster v. Maxwell Techs., Inc., No. 24 13-CV-00580-BEN-RBB, 2013 WL 5780424, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (citation 25
26 1 On May 26, 2020, Gary Buchheim also filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of 27 selection of counsel, (Dkt. No. 23); however, the motion was withdrawn on May 27, 2020 where he acknowledged that he does not possess the “largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.” 28 1 omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claims must be “reasonably co-extensive 2 with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. v. 3 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). Similar to all other class members, 4 Iron Workers alleges it purchased AnaptysBio common stock during the Class Period at 5 prices artificially inflated by Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements and/or 6 omissions and as a result, suffered damages. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 10.2) As a result, Iron 7 Workers’ claims arise from the same events and are based on the same legal theory as the 8 claims of the other class members. 9 Second, representation is “adequate” when the interests of the plaintiffs and their 10 counsel do not conflict with the interests of other class members, and the plaintiffs and 11 their counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Hanlon, 150 F.3d 12 at 1020. It appears that Iron Workers’ interests are aligned with those of the other class 13 members, and it is willing and able to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Moreover, it has a substantial 14 financial stake in the litigation providing it with incentive to litigate vigorously to represent 15 the Class’s claims and there are no facts of any actual or potential conflict of interest 16 between it and the other class members.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH Case No.: 20cv565 GPC(DEB) POLICE OFFICERS’ AND 12 FIREFIGHTERS’ PERSONNEL ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF 13 RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 itself and all others similarly situated, JOINT FUNDS FOR APPOINTMENT 14 AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND Plaintiff, 15 APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF v. LEAD COUNSEL 16
ANAPTYSBIO, INC., HAMZA SURIA, 17 [Dkt. No. 24.] MARCO LONDEI, and DOMINIC G. 18 PISCITELLI,, 19 Defendant. 20
21 Before the Court is Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds’ unopposed motion for 22 appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. Defendants 23 responded that it takes no position on which movant should be appointed as lead plaintiff 24 or which law firm should be appointed as lead counsel. (Dkt. No. 28.) On June 19, 2020, 25 Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds (“Iron Workers”) filed a notice indicating that its 26 motion was unopposed and should be granted. (Dkt. No. 29.) Based on the reasoning 27 below, the Court GRANTS Iron Workers’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and 28 approval of its selection of lead counsel. 1 Background 2 On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and 3 Firefighters’ Personnel Retirement Trust, through its counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & 4 Grossmann LLP filed a securities class action complaint against Defendant AnaptysBio, 5 Inc. (“AnaptysBio”) and certain of its current and former senior executives (collectively 6 “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) The Complaint claims that between October 10, 7 2017 and November 7, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), Defendants defrauded 8 investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 9 78t(a)), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated 10 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the 11 Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the purported efficacy of its lead drug candidate, 12 etokimab, a drug intended for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases. AnaptysBio 13 investors, including Iron Workers, incurred significant losses following reports that 14 questioned the reliability of the Company’s reported trial data for etokimab and after the 15 Company ultimately announced that etokimab had failed to meet its primary endpoint in a 16 trial evaluating the drug’s efficacy in treating patients with moderate-to-severe atopic 17 dermatitis. (Id.) 18 Discussion 19 A. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff 20 Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), no later than 20 21 days after filing a class action securities complaint, a private plaintiff or plaintiffs must 22 publish a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the 23 action, the claims asserted, and that any member of the purported class may move the court 24 to serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Not later than 60 days after the 25 date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the 26 court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. Id. Here, the notice of the pendency 27 of the action was filed on March 25, 2020. (Dkt. No. 24-5, Uslaner Decl., Ex. C.) 28 1 Within 90 days after publication of the notice, the Court shall consider any motion 2 made by a class member to serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B)(i). The 3 Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff “the member or members of the purported plaintiff 4 class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests 5 of class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The presumptively most adequate 6 plaintiff is the one who “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class” 7 and “otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). “In other words, the district court must 9 compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs and determine which one has the most 10 to gain from the lawsuit. It must then focus its attention on that plaintiff and determine, 11 based on the information he has provided in his pleadings and declarations, whether he 12 satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’ and ‘adequacy.’” 13 In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Movant Iron Workers claims that it has the largest financial interest in the relief 15 sought by the class as it lost about $200,000 on its purchases of 3,067 shares of 16 AnaptysBio’s stock during the Class Period. (Dkt. No. 24-3, Uslaner Decl., Ex. A; Dkt. 17 No. 24-4, Uslaner Decl., Ex. B.) Because no other movant has asserted the largest financial 18 interest in the litigation, the Court finds Iron Workers is the member with the largest 19 financial interest in the relief sought by the class.1 20 The Court also concludes that the typicality and adequacy requirements are met. 21 First, the typicality requirement is satisfied when “the presumptive lead plaintiff’s claim 22 arise[s] from the same event or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of other class 23 members and [are] based on the same legal theory.” Foster v. Maxwell Techs., Inc., No. 24 13-CV-00580-BEN-RBB, 2013 WL 5780424, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (citation 25
26 1 On May 26, 2020, Gary Buchheim also filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of 27 selection of counsel, (Dkt. No. 23); however, the motion was withdrawn on May 27, 2020 where he acknowledged that he does not possess the “largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.” 28 1 omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claims must be “reasonably co-extensive 2 with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. v. 3 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). Similar to all other class members, 4 Iron Workers alleges it purchased AnaptysBio common stock during the Class Period at 5 prices artificially inflated by Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements and/or 6 omissions and as a result, suffered damages. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 10.2) As a result, Iron 7 Workers’ claims arise from the same events and are based on the same legal theory as the 8 claims of the other class members. 9 Second, representation is “adequate” when the interests of the plaintiffs and their 10 counsel do not conflict with the interests of other class members, and the plaintiffs and 11 their counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Hanlon, 150 F.3d 12 at 1020. It appears that Iron Workers’ interests are aligned with those of the other class 13 members, and it is willing and able to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Moreover, it has a substantial 14 financial stake in the litigation providing it with incentive to litigate vigorously to represent 15 the Class’s claims and there are no facts of any actual or potential conflict of interest 16 between it and the other class members. Finally, Iron Workers’ retained counsel, Bernstein 17 Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, as discussed below, is well experienced in the area of 18 complex securities class litigation and is capable of representing the interests of the Class. 19 Therefore, the Court finds that Iron Workers is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff under the 20 PSLRA. 21 The presumption that Iron Workers is the most adequate Lead Plaintiff may be 22 rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that it will not fairly 23 and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render 24 them incapable of adequately representing the class. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). 25 No movant has opposed the motion or come forward with such proof. Accordingly, the 26 Court hereby APPOINTS Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiff. 27 28 1 B. Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel 2 Under the PSLRA, once the court has designated a lead plaintiff, that plaintiff “shall 3 subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 4 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). If the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, 5 the district court should generally defer to that choice. Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 586 F.3d 6 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009). Iron Workers asks the Court to approve their selection of 7 Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead counsel. On its firm resume, 8 Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP claims to be the nation’s leading securities 9 class action firm. (Dkt. No. 24-6, Uslander Decl., Ex. D.) It has served as lead counsel in 10 numerous securities class action litigation and obtained billions of dollars in recovery. 11 (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 11-12 (citing cases).) In light of the firm’s substantial experience in 12 securities class action litigation, the Court APPROVES Iron Workers’ choice of counsel 13 and APPOINTS Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 15 1. Iron Workers’ Motion is GRANTED. 16 2. Iron Workers is APPOINTED to serve as Lead Plaintiff under Section 17 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as 18 amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, in the above-captioned 19 action and all related actions consolidated in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Order. 20 3. Iron Workers’ selection of Lead Counsel is APPROVED, and Bernstein 21 Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is APPOINTED as Lead Counsel for the Class. 22 4. In accordance with Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any 23 subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions that are related to the claims asserted in 24 the above-captioned action are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 5. This action will be captioned “Jn re AnaptysBio, Inc. Securities Litigation,” 2 and the file shall be maintained under Master File No. 3:20-cv-00565-GPC-MDD. 3 The hearing date set on July 24, 2020 shall be vacated. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: July 15, 2020 2 7 Hon. athe Coke 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28