Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided March 14, 2022·No. 3:20-cv-00649·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SCOTT KUHNE, individually and on Case No.: 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND AUTHORIZING DISSEMINATION v. OF NOTICE TO THE CLASS

GOSSAMER BIO, INC., SHEILA JOSHUA H. BILENKER, M.D., KRISTINA BUROW, RUSSELL RENEE GALA, OTELLO STAMPACCHIA, Ph.D., MERRILL SMITH INCORPORATED, SVB LEERINK LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., and EVERCORE

Defendants. WHEREAS, a class action is pending in this Court entitled Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB (the “Action”); WHEREAS, (a) Lead Plaintiff Scott Kuhne (“Lead Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and the Class (defined below) and (b) Defendants Gossamer Bio, Inc. (“Gossamer” or “the Company”), Sheila Gujrathi, M.D., Bryan Giraudo, Faheem Hasnain, Joshua H. Bilenker, M.D., Kristina Burow, Russell Cox, Thomas Daniel, M.D., Renee Gala, Otello Stampacchia, Ph.D, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, SVB Leerink LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Evercore Group L.L.C. (the “Defendants”) (collectively with Lead Plaintiff, the “Settling Parties”) have determined to settle all claims asserted against Defendants in this Action with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Class Action Settlement dated February 1, 2022 (the “Stipulation”) (ECF No. 66-2) subject to approval of this Court (the “Settlement”); WHEREAS, the Settling Parties having made application, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the Action, in accordance with the Stipulation; WHEREAS, the Court has read and considered: (a) Lead Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement and authorizing dissemination of notice to the Class and the papers filed and arguments made in connection therewith (ECF Nos. 66, 66-1); and (b) the Stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto (ECF Nos. 66-2–66-6); and WHEREAS, the proposed settlement: “(1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of possible approval[,]” Romero v. Securus Techs, Inc., No. 16-cv-1283 JM (MDD), 2020 WL 3250599, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) (internal quotations omitted); and WHEREAS, unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized words contained herein shall have the same meanings as they have in the Stipulation. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Provisional Certification of the Settlement Class – Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of this settlement only, the Action is hereby preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of: all Persons who purchased Gossamer common stock between February 8, 2019 and December 13, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and/or who acquired Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable to Gossamer’s Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their families, the officers, directors, and affiliates, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The foregoing exclusion shall not cover Investment Vehicles. 2. Also excluded from the Class are the Persons who timely and validly seek exclusion from the Class pursuant to the requirements described below and in the Notice to be sent to Class Members pursuant to this Order. 3. The Court finds, for the purposes of the Settlement only, that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. The (a) number of Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, given that millions of shares were sold during the class period (ECF No. 66-1 at 20), tending to indicate a sufficiently large class that makes joinder “impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). There (b) are questions of law and fact common to the Class, centered on whether Defendants’ SEC filings failed to disclose material facts (ECF No. 66-1 at 21) and (c) the claims of Lead Plaintiff Scott Kuhne are typical of the claims of the Class he seeks to represent. (Id. at 22.) Both (d) Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class, given that Lead Plaintiff’s interests are aligned with the class and Proposed Class Counsel is experienced in securities class action litigation. (Id. at 23). The (e) the questions of law and fact common to members of the Class—centered on whether there was a misrepresentation or omission and whether it was material—predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class, and (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, given geographically dispersed investors with likely small individual damages. (Id. at 23–24). 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and solely for the purposes of effectuating the Settlement, Lead Plaintiff is appointed as representative for the Class and Lead Counsel is appointed as counsel for the Class. Solely for the purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel is authorized to act on behalf of Lead Plaintiff and the other Class Members with respect to all acts or consents required by or that may be given pursuant to the Stipulation, including all acts that are reasonably necessary to consummate the Settlement. 5. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement – The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below. 6. Settlement Hearing – The Court will hold a settlement hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) on Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Courtroom 13-A, for the following purposes: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (b) to determine whether a Judgment substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendants; (c) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (d) to determine whether the motion by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (e) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement Hearing (“Notice”) shall be given to Class Members as set forth in paragraph 8 of this Order. 7. Retention of Claims Administrator and Manner of Giving Notice – Lead Counsel is hereby authorized to retain Angeion Group (the “Claims Administrator”) to supervise and administer the notic

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

Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc. (Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 77z-
15 U.S.C. § 77z-
§ 77z
15 U.S.C. § 77z