Brownback v. AppLovin Corporation

Background

This proposed class action concerns claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against AppLovin Corporation and other defendants. Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds and Monroe County Employees’ Retirement System (the “Pension Funds”) moved under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) to be appointed lead plaintiff and to have Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP approved as lead counsel.

Three similar complaints were initially filed, and five motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were submitted by the deadline. The plaintiffs in two related actions later voluntarily dismissed their complaints. Other movants either withdrew their motions or filed notices stating that they did not oppose the Pension Funds’ motion. The Pension Funds’ motion was the only one remaining.

Lead Plaintiff Analysis

The court applied the PSLRA’s process for selecting the plaintiff most capable of adequately representing the class. First, it determined whether the required notice had been published. Notice was published on GlobeNewswire on March 5, 2025, the same day the first complaint was filed. The court found that the notice met the timing and content requirements and that GlobeNewswire qualified as a widely circulated business publication or wire service.

Second, the court identified the plaintiff with the largest financial interest. The Pension Funds claimed losses of $1,827,307 from purchases of AppLovin securities during the class period. The court found that they had the largest financial interest under the PSLRA.

Third, the court considered whether the Pension Funds met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning typicality and adequacy. The court found that their alleged injuries—arising from purchases of AppLovin securities in reliance on allegedly false and misleading statements—were typical of the proposed class’s claims. It also found no apparent unique defenses or antagonism that would make the Pension Funds inadequate representatives.

Lead Counsel

The PSLRA permits the most adequate plaintiff to select counsel, subject to court approval. The court deferred to the Pension Funds’ selection because it found no basis to doubt the lawyers’ willingness or ability to perform their roles. The court noted that Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP had extensive experience representing plaintiffs in securities class actions.

Disposition

The court granted the Pension Funds’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. It appointed the Pension Funds as lead plaintiff for the proposed class and approved Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. The parties were ordered to submit a stipulation and proposed order addressing the schedule for an amended complaint and the defendants’ response by July 14, 2025.

The supplied opinion is labeled “Order as Modified,” but the text provided does not explain what modification was made.