Yang v. Nano Nuclear Energy Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-06057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Yang v. Nano Nuclear Energy, Judge Furman set deadlines and a conference for selecting lead plaintiffs and counsel in a securities class action.
Yvette Yang, members of the proposed class of NNE-security purchasers, the defendants, and any proposed lead plaintiffs or lead counsel.
What happened
Yang v. Nano Nuclear Energy is a proposed class action by Yvette Yang for people who bought Nano Nuclear Energy securities between May 8 and July 18, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws.
The court set October 8, 2024, as the deadline for proposed class members to seek appointment as lead plaintiffs and October 15, 2024, as the deadline to oppose those requests. It also scheduled an October 30 conference about selecting lead plaintiffs and counsel and combining related cases if necessary.
Judge Furman ordered these case-management steps, required prompt service of the order on the defendants, and required plaintiff’s counsel to notify the court if an amended complaint or related case is filed before a lead plaintiff is appointed. The order did not decide the securities claims.
The detailed version
- Yang v. Nano Nuclear Energy Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06057
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 20, 2024
Background
Yvette Yang filed a proposed class action on August 9, 2024, on behalf of people who purchased NNE securities between May 8, 2024, and July 18, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires notice to members of the proposed class. The notice must describe the pending action, the claims, and the proposed class period. After publication, proposed class members may ask to serve as lead plaintiff—the person or persons selected to represent the proposed class. The court must consider those requests and appoint the member or members most capable of adequately representing the class. If related actions are filed and a party seeks to combine them, the court must decide that request before appointing a lead plaintiff.
Order
Plaintiff’s counsel told the court that the required notice was published on August 9, 2024. The court therefore ordered that proposed class members may move for appointment as lead plaintiffs by October 8, 2024, and that opposition to any such motion must be served and filed by October 15, 2024.
The court scheduled a conference for October 30, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York. The conference will address motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, as well as motions to combine related actions.
If an amended complaint or related case is filed before a lead plaintiff is appointed, plaintiff’s counsel must, within one week, submit a letter identifying differences between the new allegations and the original complaint. The letter must address, among other things, any differences in the claims or proposed class periods and explain why the court should not require republication of notice and set a new deadline for lead-plaintiff motions. The court also ordered the named plaintiffs to promptly serve a copy of the order on each defendant.
Disposition and Significance
This is a procedural order setting the process and deadlines for selecting lead plaintiffs and counsel in the proposed securities class action. The court did not rule on whether the alleged securities-law violations occurred or whether the proposed class should ultimately be certified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.