Wilson v. Xerox Holdings Corporation
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-08809
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wilson v. Xerox Holdings Corporation, Judge Ho set deadlines and a conference for selecting lead plaintiff and counsel in the securities class action.
Jacob Wilson, the proposed class of Xerox Holdings Corporation securities purchasers, potential lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, plaintiff’s counsel, and the defendants.
What happened
In Wilson v. Xerox Holdings Corporation, Jacob Wilson filed a class action on behalf of people who purchased Xerox Holdings Corporation securities between January 25 and October 28, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and related regulations.
The court explained the deadlines under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Potential lead plaintiffs had until January 21, 2025, to seek appointment; opposition was due February 4, 2025; and the court scheduled a February 13, 2025 conference to consider lead-plaintiff, lead-counsel, and consolidation motions.
Judge Dale E. Ho also ordered procedures if an amended complaint or related case is filed before a lead plaintiff is appointed, and required the named plaintiffs to promptly serve the order on the defendants.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Xerox Holdings Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-08809
- Ho
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
On November 19, 2024, Jacob Wilson filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Xerox Holdings Corporation securities during the period from January 25, 2024, through October 28, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The court stated that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires notice of the action, the claims, and the proposed class period to be published in a widely circulated national business publication or wire service. The notice was published on November 19, 2024, according to plaintiff’s counsel.
Deadlines and Conference
Because the notice was published on November 19, 2024, members of the proposed class had until January 21, 2025, to move for appointment as lead plaintiff. Opposition to any lead-plaintiff motion had to be served and filed by February 4, 2025.
The court ordered a conference for February 13, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to consider motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. The conference was scheduled to take place through Microsoft Teams.
Additional Orders
If an amended complaint or related case was filed before a lead plaintiff was appointed, plaintiff’s counsel had to submit a letter within one week identifying differences between the new and original allegations, including differences in the claims or class periods. Counsel also had to show why the court should not require publication of a new notice and set a new deadline for lead-plaintiff motions.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the named plaintiffs to promptly serve a copy of the order on each defendant. The opinion is a case-management order addressing the lead-plaintiff process; it does not decide the merits of the securities claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.