Summary
concluding that a three-member investor group that jointly moved for lead plaintiff designation "in consultation with our counsel" was not independently formed
Summary of this case from Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local No. 478 Pension Fund v. FXCM Inc.Opinion
11 Civ. 9297 (KBF)
04-02-2012
IN RE CMED SECURITIES LITIGATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
:
Currently pending before the Court are three competing motions to appoint lead plaintiff (with their attendant choice of lead counsel), all of which also seek consolidation of three related actions, Burdman v. China Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., 11 Civ. 9297 ("Burdman"), Mahaney v. China Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., 12 Civ. 882 ("Mahaney"), and Johnson v. China Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., 12 Civ. 1009 ("Johnson" and collectively with Burdman and Mahaney, the "Actions"). (See Dkt. Nos. 9, 11, 14.)
All references to docket numbers are to filings made in Burdman, 11 Civ. 9297, the first filed of the Actions.
The Actions are each putative class actions brought pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs in the Actions, purchasers of China Medical Technologies, Inc.'s ("CMED") American Depository Shares ("ADS"), allege that CMED and two of its officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial health.
Movants "the Bachmann Group"--consisting of Dietrich G. Bachmann, Micro-Medical International PTE, Ltd. ("Micro-Medical"), and Danny Vloeberghs--Robert Beagle ("Beagle"), and Jay Wakefield all seek appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B).
For the reasons set forth below, the motions to consolidate are granted. Dietrich G. Bachmann and Micro-Medical International PTE, Ltd. are selected as lead plaintiffs, with Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP approved as lead counsel. I. CONSOLIDATION
A. Standard
The PSLRA provides that where, as here, there is more than one action of a class with the same claims, the court shall first decide whether the actions should be consolidated. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(b)(ii). Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consolidation is appropriate "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). See also Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990). Although consolidation acts primarily as an efficiency mechanism, "invoked to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion," Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (quotation marks and citations omitted), in exercising its "broad discretion," Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1284, the court should similarly be mindful of equity, Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130, and the need for a "fair and impartial trial," Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1284-85.
B. Discussion
All movants seek consolidation of the Actions pursuant to Rule 42. The factual allegations are substantially similar and the asserted claims are identical in all three Actions, such that the Actions involve common questions of law and fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42; see Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130. All three complaints name the same defendants and assert claims under section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. All three complaints likewise allege those Exchange Act violations in connection with purportedly materially false and misleading statements by CMED related to, inter alia, CMED's acquisition of Beijing Bio-Ekon Biotechnology Co., Ltd. ("BBE"), CMED's reporting of its quarterly financial results from 2007 through the second fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2011, and CMED's Form 20-F annual reports for the fiscal years 2006 through 2010. According to the complaints, such false and misleading statements allegedly artificially inflated CMED's ADS and damaged putative class members. On that basis, the Actions should be consolidated. See Bassin v. deCODE Genetics, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 313, 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("Consolidation is particularly appropriate in the context of securities class actions if the complaints are based on the same public statements and reports and defendants will not be prejudiced.").
The only difference among the Actions is that the Burdman and Johnson complaints allege an earlier state date to the class period--November 26, 2007 (Burdman Compl. ¶ 1; Johnson Compl. ¶ 1)--than the Mahaney complaint--February 7, 2007 (Mahaney Compl. ¶ 1). That slight difference, particularly given the near-identity of allegations among the Actions, does not preclude consolidation. See In re Gen. Elec. Secs. Litig., No. 09 Civ. 1951, 2009 WL 2259502, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2009) ("Differences in causes of action, defendants, or the class period do not render consolidation inappropriate if the cases present sufficiently common questions of fact and law, and the differences do not outweigh the interests of judicial economy served by consolidation." (quotation marks omitted)) (Chin, J.); In re Orion Secs. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 1328, 2008 WL 2811358, at *3 & n.2 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2008); Kaplan v. Gelfond, 240 F.R.D. 88, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Court will use the longest-noticed class period--i.e., November 26, 2007 through December 12, 2011--as it encompasses more putative class members. In re Doral Fin. Corp. Secs. Litig., 414 F. Supp. 2d 398, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
All three complaints close the class period on December 12, 2011.
All movants seek consolidation and defendants have not opposed the motion for consolidation--i.e., there is little (if any) potential for prejudice. See Kaplan, 240 F.R.D. at 91. Accordingly, the Actions are hereby consolidated under the above-listed caption and docket number.
All future filings shall bear the caption "In re CMED Securities Litigation" and be filed in the 11 Civ. 9297 case number. The Mahaney and Johnson actions shall be closed. II. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF(S)
A. Standard for the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
i. Appointment of "Member or Members"
Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court "shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members . . . ." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Courts are divided on whether the phrase "members" allows for aggregation of unrelated investors as a "group" for purposes of lead plaintiff status. See, e.g., Beckman v. Enerl, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 5794, 2012 WL 512651, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) (collecting cases); Varghese v. China Shenguho Pharm. Holdings, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 388, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing In re eSpeed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 232 F.R.D. 95, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). The prevailing position is that unrelated investors may join together, with review "on a case-by-case basis," "if such a grouping would best serve the class." Varghese, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 392. A proposed lead plaintiff group must make "an evidentiary showing" that its members "will be able to function cohesively and to effectively manage the litigation apart from their lawyers." Id. To make such a showing, a proposed lead plaintiff group should proffer evidence of: (1) a pre-litigation relationship among the group's members; (2) group member's participation in the litigation to date; (3) plans for cooperation; (4) the sophistication of the group's members (in the interest of adhering to Congress' interest in having institutional investors pursue securities class actions); and "(5) whether the members chose outside counsel, and not vice versa" (pursuant to Congress' intent to curb lawyer-driven litigation in enacting the PSLRA). Id.
See S. Rep. No. 104-98, at 10-11 (1995), as reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679, 689-90 ("The Committee intends to increase the likelihood that institutional investors will serve as lead plaintiffs by requiring the court to presume that the member of the class with the largest financial stake in the relief sought is the 'most adequate plaintiff.'").
City of Pontiac Gen. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2012 WL 546475, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2012) ("Congress enacted the PSLRA to curtail the champertous vice of 'lawyer-driven' securities litigation.").
Courts will deny a proposed group's motion--or may disaggregate the group sua sponte and consider its members individually--where the group has failed to meet its burden with respect to the above five factors. See, e.g., Beckman, 2012 WL 512651, at *4 (disaggregating a proposed lead plaintiff group where "[t]he Court perceive[d] there to be a real threat of lawyer-driven litigation"); In re Doral Fin. Corp. Secs. Litig., 414 F. Supp. 2d at 401-02 (rejecting unrelated proposed lead plaintiff groups given the court's concern about attorney manipulation "in an effort to generate 'the largest financial interest'"); Weltz v. Lee, 199 F.R.D. 129, 133 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (espousing sua sponte modification); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Secs. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 45-48 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
ii. The PSLRA's Rebuttal Presumption
The PSLRA creates a "rebuttable presumption" that the "most adequate plaintiff" "is the person or group of persons" who "has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class," provided that such person or persons satisfies Rule 23's requirements. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc). See also Constance Sczesny Trust v. KPMG LLP, 223 F.R.D. 319, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (noting that the court has discretion to appoint more than one lead plaintiff and t aggregate losses suffered by a court-appointed group of investors). The presumption may be rebutted upon a showing that the presumptive lead plaintiff "will not fairly or adequately protect the interests of the class" or "is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(1)(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)-(bb).
In determining which putative lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff group has the largest financial interest, courts examine the four factors first enumerated in Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036 (N. Ill. Aug. 11, 1997): (1) the number of shares purchased; (2) the number of net shares purchased; (3) total net funds expended by the plaintiffs during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered by the plaintiffs. Richman v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 274 F.R.D. 473, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Lax); Foley v. Transocean Ltd., 272 F.R.D. 126, 127-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (same); Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co., Inc., 229 F.R.D. 359, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (same). In giving weight to the four factors, courts in this District, as others, "place the most emphasis on the last of the four factors: the approximate losses suffered by the movant" above any weight accorded to net shares purchased and net expenditures. City of Monroe Emps.' Ret. Sys. V. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 269 F.R.D. 291, 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (collecting cases); Foley, 272 F.R.D. at 127-28.
iii. Calculation of Largest Financial Interest
Courts look to various methods of calculating "approximate losses." "In the context of a securities class action, FIFO and LIFO refer to methods used for matching purchases and sales of stock during the class period in order to measure a class members damages." In re AOL Time Warner, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 5575, 2006 WL 903236, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2006). Courts in this District "have a very strong preference for the LIFO method in calculating loss." Richman, 274 F.R.D. at 475; accord City of Monroe, 269 F.R.D. at 295 ("While the PSLRA does not address which method of loss calculation should be employed [in determining the largest financial interest], courts in this district and others have stated a preference for LIFO over FIFO in assessing loss for the purposes of the appointment of lead plaintiff."). "LIFO," or "last in, first out," calculates loss by assuming that the stocks purchased most recently were sold first. Kaplan, 240 F.R.D. at 94 n.7. The "FIFO" (first in, first out) method for calculating loss assumes that the earliest purchased securities are those sold first. Id. "'The main advantage of LIFO is that, unlike FIFO, it takes into account gains that might have accrued to plaintiffs during the class period due to the inflation of the stock price. FIFO . . . ignores sales occurring during the class period and may exaggerate losses.'" City of Monroe, 269 F.R.D. at 295 (quoting In re eSpeed, Inc. Secs. Litig., 232 F.R.D. at 101).
iv. The Requirements of Rule 23
The PSLSR further mandates that an appointed lead plaintiff meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(cc). Of the four Rule 23 requirements--colloquially known as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)--typicality and adequacy are the most relevant to the appointment of a lead plaintiff. See Pirelli, 229 F.R.D. at 412. "Typicality is satisfied if each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability," In re Orion Secs. Litig., 2008 WL 2811358, at *5 (quotations marks and citation omitted). Adequacy simply means that a proposed lead plaintiff has the ability to "'fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). A movant need only make a "preliminary showing" as to those two prerequisites for appointment as lead plaintiff (if the movant meets the above requirements as well). See Pirelli, 229 F.R.D. at 412.
B. The Proposed Lead Plaintiffs
All movants timely filed motions pursuant to the PSLRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
As an initial matter, proposed lead plaintiff Wakefield, who unquestionably has the smallest financial interest of the three movants, has not opposed the motions by the Bachmann Group or by Beagle. Thus, Wakefield has failed to rebut the "largest financial interest" presumption and cannot be considered for choice of lead plaintiff. See In re Orion Secs. Litig., 2008 WL 2811358, at *6. His motion for appointment as lead plaintiff is denied.
Using a LIFO or FIFO methodology, Beagle, who purchased 146,446 CMED ADS from February 7, 2007 through December 12, 2011 (the "Class Period"), suffered losses of $595,090.02. (Mem. of Law in Further Support of Robert Beagle's Mot. ("Beagle Opp'n") (Dkt. No. 18) at 4.) The Bachmann Group collectively purchased 93,450 ADS (of which it retained 83,450 at the end of the Class Period) and suffered losses (again under both LIFO and FIFO) of $989,403, during the Class Period. (Mem. of Law in Support of the Mot. by Bachmann & Vloeberghs ("Bachmann Mem.") (Dkt. No. 10) at 8; see also Beagle Opp'n at 4.) By numbers alone, it would appear that the Bachmann Group has the "largest financial interest" in the action.
In his opening memorandum, Beagle calculated his losses at $601,454.63, using an average price of $00.00 per ADS based upon the fact that the NASDAQ halted trading of CMED ADS on February 7, 2012. (Mem. Of Law in Further Support of Robert Beagle's Mot. ("Beagle Mem.") (Dkt. No. 15) at 8 (citing Decl. of Richard W. Gonnello in Support of Robert Beagle's Mot. ("Gonello Decl.") (Dkt. No. 16) Exs. C, D) & n.5.) The $6364.61 disparity between his opening estimated losses and those in his opposition and reply memoranda are accounted for by using the Bachmann Group's $2.9658 value for CMED ADS held at the end of the class period. (Beagle Opp'n at 4; see also Mem. of Law in Support of the Mot. By Bachmann & Vloeberghs ("Bachmann Mem.") (Dkt. No. 10) Ex. D.)
Taken individually, Bachmann suffered LIFO/FIFO losses of $412,916; Micro-Medical, losses of $269,989; and Vloeberghs, losses of $306,498. (Bachmann Mem. at 8.)
In the Bachmann Group's opposition and reply memoranda (Dkt. Nos. 17, 20), it additionally calculates losses under a method it terms "Dura LIFO Losses," to show that even under that method its losses exceeds Beagle's. (See, e.g., Mem. of Law in Further Support of the Mot. By Bachmann & Vloeberghs ("Bachmann Opp'n") (Dkt. No. 17) at 3.) In response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dura Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2006), that methodology (or the "retained shares methodology") considers only "the number of shares purchased during the class period that are retained at the end of the class period." Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 10-CV-3451, 2011 WL 566814, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011). The Court is not aware of any case in this Circuit--and the Bachmann Group has not cited any--that has calculated losses for purposes of appointing a lead plaintiff where the pleadings allege partial corrective disclosures. Cf. In re Gen. Elec. Secs. Litig., No. 09 Civ. 1951, 2009 WL 2259502, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2009) (Chin, J.). Accordingly, the Court does not consider the "Dura LIFO losses" set forth by the Bachmann Group.
Beagle seeks to undermine that fact, however, by claiming that the three-member Bachmann Group is a lawyer-driven creation, with only two of three members having a pre-litigation relationship. (See Beagle Opp'n at 6-8; Reply Mem. in Further Support of Robert Beagle's Mot. ("Beagle Reply") (Dkt. No. 21) at 1.) In other words, the Bachmann Group, in Beagle's view, would be an inadequate class representative under Rule 23. Beagle further claims, without citation to any case from this District or Circuit, that seeking lead plaintiff appointment as a group forecloses the Bachmann Group's ability to be considered individually--or in some combination--for lead plaintiff status. (Beagle Opp'n at 8-9.) As discussed above, the latter assertion is not grounded in the law in this District.
In support of their motion, the Bachmann Group submitted a declaration regarding its members' intent to proceed as a lead plaintiff group. (See Joint Decl. of Danny Vloeberghs & Dietrich G. Bachmann ("Joint Decl.") (Bachmann Mem. Ex. C (Dkt. No. 10-3)) ¶¶ 3, 6.) Vloeberghs and Bachmann, "on behalf of himself and Mico-Medical International PTE, Ltd."--i.e., as Micro-Medical's sole shareholder and Managing Director (see Decl. of Dietrich G. Bachmann in Further Support of the Mot. ("Bachmann Decl.") (Dkt. No. 20-1) ¶ 2)--stated, inter alia, that they "intend to meet telephonically at least quarterly," and "will take an active role in the prosecution of the case," (Joint Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7), but acknowledged that "[i]n consultation with our counsel, we agreed to proceed together because we . . . would like the opportunity to participate in this action as Lead Plaintiffs," (id. ¶ 6 (emphasis added)). The Bachmann Group further concedes that of its members, only Bachmann himself and Micro-Medical, the company of which Bachmann is the sole shareholder and Managing Director, have a pre-litigation relationship. (Bachmann Opp'n at 7.) There is nothing before the Court that indicates that Vloeberghs and Bachmann independently formed this group (and included Bachmann's company, Micro-Medical). To the contrary, at the purported conference call among the two of them and their counsel, they exchanged contact information to be able to communicate outside the presence of counsel. (Bachmann Opp'n at 8.) Those facts, particularly paragraph 6 of the Joint Declaration, lead the Court to find that the aggregation of Bachmann and Micro-Medical with Vloeberghs was lawyer-driven and thus, inappropriate for appointment as a lead plaintiff group.
Through an internet search. Beagle attempted to show that Bachmann was not Micro-Medical's sole shareholder. (See Decl. of Richard W. Gonnello in Further Support of Robert Beagle's Mot. (Dkt. No. 19) Ex. B.) Bachmann's admissible declaration in further support of the group's motion adequately rebuts the hearsay that Beagle offered in support of that alleged "fact." (See Bachmann Decl. ¶ 2.)
Citing to paragraph 3 of the Bachmann Declaration, the Bachmann Group asserted for the first time in its opposition that its members already have "participated in a joint conference with proposed lead counsel." (See, e.g., Bachmann Reply at 6; Bachmann Opp'n at 8 (no citation).) That paragraph simply states that the group "intends to meet telephonically at least quarterly." (Joint Decl. ¶ 3 (emphasis added).) Thus, the Court can only assume that either the group met after it recognized that it had competition for lead plaintiff status or that they consider the "consultation with counsel" referenced in paragraph 6 of the Joint Declaration to be the first of their quarterly telephonic conference calls. --------
That said, the Court will look at the individual members of the Bachmann Group, in comparison with Beagle, in order to determine which of the four (a) has the greatest financial interest; and (b) meets the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. See Beckman, 2012 WL 512651, at *4; In re McDermott Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 9943, 2009 WL 579502, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009) (Chin, J.). As discussed in n.7 supra, under either a LIFO/FIFO method, Bachmann suffered individual losses of $412,916, Micro-Medical suffered individual losses of $269,989, and Vloeberghs losses of $306,498. All of those are less than Beagle's $595,090.02. However, aggregating Bachmann's and Micro-Medical's losses (based upon their pre-litigation relationship and the close nature of their existing relationship), their collective losses total $682,905--i.e., $87,815 more than Beagle's losses.
Fearing that outcome, Beagle made a last-ditch attempt to join in the lead plaintiff structure by arguing that the Bachmann Group's use of the retained shares methodology "assumes that China Medical's announcement on December 13, 2011 is the sole corrective disclosure" (Beagle Reply at 8), meaning that the Bachmann Group's members are "no longer seeking relief on behalf of those investors who suffered losses in connection with the partial corrective disclosures throughout the Class Period" (id. at 9). On that basis, Beagle argues that any of the members of the Bachmann Group are inadequate class representatives for those investors who suffered losses in connection with partial corrective disclosures. (Id.)
Although the Court finds the inclusion of "Dura LIFO losses" questionable, the papers show such losses as one of various methods of calculating loss, including LIFO itself. (See, e.g., Bachmann Reply at 2.) There is no indication that any of the Bachmann Group's members abandoned the partial corrective disclosures alleged in the Burdman complaint merely by showing an alternative (albeit unnecessary and infrequently used in this District) method of calculating losses.
Accordingly, the Court appoints Bachmann & Micro-Medical lead plaintiffs in this action. See In re McDermott Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2009 WL 579502, at *4, 5 (disaggregating a group consisting of a related two-some and an unrelated third member, and appointing the related pair lead plaintiff). III. APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
The appointment of lead counsel is accorded to the "most adequate plaintiff," conditioned upon court approval. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). There is a "strong presumption in favor of approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff's decision as to counsel selection and counsel retention." Varghese, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 398 (quotation marks omitted).
Lead plaintiffs Bachmann and Micro-Medical have selected Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP to represent the class. The Pomerantz firm has included the firm's history, ability to successfully litigate on behalf of securities action class plaintiffs, and their experience as class counsel in these types of actions. (Bachmann Mem. Ex. D.) Accordingly, the Court finds the firm is qualified to serve as co-lead counsel in this action and approves Bachmann and Micro-Medical's choice of lead counsel. IV. CONCLUSION
A. Consolidation
For the aforementioned reasons, the motions to consolidate the Actions are GRANTED. The Burdman, Mahaney, and Johnson actions are hereby consolidated as In re CMED Securities Litigation, No. 11 Civ. 9792 (the "Consolidated Action").
All related actions subsequently filed in, or transferred to, this District shall be consolidated into the Consolidated Action, absent order of the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the following cases and any pending motions in those cases: 12 Civ. 882 and 12 Civ. 1009.
The oral argument scheduled for April 6, 2012, is hereby ADJOURNED.
B. Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel
Movant Jay Wakefield's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel is DENIED.
The Bachmann Group's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and of lead counsel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Beagle's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel is DENIED.
Dietrich G. Bachmann and Micro-Medical International PTE. Ltd. will serve as lead plaintiffs in this action, with Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP as lead counsel.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions to consolidate and for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel (Dkt. Nos. 9, 11, 14).
C. Subsequent Procedures
The schedule for the filing of an amended consolidated complaint and moving against it commences upon the filing of this Memorandum & Order. (See Dkt. No. 5.) No extensions of the schedule will be granted absent very good cause.
SO ORDERED: Dated: New York, New York
April 2, 2012
/s/_________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge