Olsen v. New York Community Bankcorp Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER; granting in part and denying in part 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, granting 8 Motion to Consolidate Cases, granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel, granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Consolidate Cases, granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel, granting in part and denying in part [] Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion

12 Cited authorities

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co.
267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 664 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding compensatory or punitive damages sometimes permissible under Rule 23(b)
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co., Inc.
229 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 138 times
Holding that the "experience of a candidate" is "relevant to reaching a determination as to whether a candidate will be capable of adequately protecting the interests of the class"
In re Olsten Corp. Securities Litg.
3 F. Supp. 2d 286 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) Cited 161 times
Consolidating cases with different, but overlapping, class periods
Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.
366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 135 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance
In re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation
232 F.R.D. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Cited 129 times
Holding that "a group of unrelated investors should not be considered as lead plaintiff when that group would displace the institutional investor preferred by the PSLRA"
Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 66 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting joint application of an individual investor and an institutional plaintiff because there is "no need to have them both as Lead Plaintiff"
Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc.
206 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D.N.J. 2002) Cited 41 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the group could not work effectively to adequately represent the interests of the class because the group "concede[d] that the only pre-existing relationship among the various proposed individuals [was] the fact that they all invested through the same broker"
In re Star Gas Securities Litigation
No. 3:04cv1766 (JBA) (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2005) Cited 15 times
Explaining that a majority of courts have allowed "a group of unrelated investors to serve as lead plaintiffs when it would be most beneficial to the class under the circumstances of a given case"
Dolan v. Axis Capital Holdings LTD
Nos. 04 Civ. 8564 (RJH), 04 Civ. 8810 (RJH) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2005) Cited 2 times
Nos. 04 Civ. 8564 (RJH), 04 Civ. 8810 (RJH). April 13, 2005 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD HOLWELL, District Judge Presently before the Court are two securities fraud actions brought against certain officers and directors of Axis Capital Holdings, ("Axis") and Axis itself (collectively, the "defendants") on behalf of a purported class of investors who claim that defendants disseminated false and misleading statements regarding Axis' results and operations from August 6, 2003 to October 14,
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,874 times 1232 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,219 times 23 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,451 times 48 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Olsen v. New York Community Bankcorp Inc. et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding compensatory or punitive damages sometimes permissible under Rule 23(b)

Holding that the "experience of a candidate" is "relevant to reaching a determination as to whether a candidate will be capable of adequately protecting the interests of the class"

Consolidating cases with different, but overlapping, class periods

Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

Holding that "a group of unrelated investors should not be considered as lead plaintiff when that group would displace the institutional investor preferred by the PSLRA"

Rejecting joint application of an individual investor and an institutional plaintiff because there is "no need to have them both as Lead Plaintiff"

Holding that the group could not work effectively to adequately represent the interests of the class because the group "concede[d] that the only pre-existing relationship among the various proposed individuals [was] the fact that they all invested through the same broker"

Explaining that a majority of courts have allowed "a group of unrelated investors to serve as lead plaintiffs when it would be most beneficial to the class under the circumstances of a given case"

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party