In re RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION

Background

The action asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Reckitt and certain officers and directors made false or misleading statements or omissions affecting people who purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, and suffered damages.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires the court to appoint the “most adequate plaintiff” as lead plaintiff. In general, the court presumes that the most adequate plaintiff is the timely applicant with the largest financial interest that also makes the required preliminary showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23 governs class actions and includes requirements concerning, among other things, whether the proposed representative’s claims are typical of the class and whether the representative can adequately protect the class’s interests.

NYHTCHA Fund and Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(k) Fund, referred to as the ECU Fund, both timely moved for appointment. The court directed them to address which had the larger financial interest and whether each otherwise satisfied Rule 23. NYHTCHA Fund submitted that it had the larger financial interest. ECU Fund submitted that it appeared not to have the largest financial interest.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that NYHTCHA Fund satisfied the statutory requirements. First, notice of the action was published on Business Wire on June 5, 2025, the same day the complaint was filed, and NYHTCHA Fund moved by the August 4, 2025 deadline.

Second, the court found that NYHTCHA Fund asserted the largest financial interest. The fund reported purchasing 585,730 shares, acquiring 125,439 net shares, spending $2,763,451 in net funds, and suffering a claimed loss of $1,289,231. ECU Fund conceded that it had not asserted a larger financial interest. The court stated that, when comparing financial interests, the approximate loss suffered is the most significant factor.

Third, the court found that NYHTCHA Fund made the required preliminary showing under Rule 23. Its claims were typical because it purchased Reckitt American Depositary Shares during the class period, was allegedly affected by the defendants’ statements and omissions, and allegedly suffered damages. The court found the fund adequate because its interests aligned with those of other class members, and nothing indicated a conflict of interest, a unique defense, or another problem impairing its representation. The fund also certified that it was willing to perform the duties of lead plaintiff and had retained experienced counsel. No one offered evidence rebutting the presumption that NYHTCHA Fund was the most adequate plaintiff.

Lead Counsel

The court approved NYHTCHA Fund’s selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. It found that Robbins Geller had substantial experience prosecuting securities-fraud class actions and was qualified to prosecute this action for the class.

Disposition

The court GRANTED NYHTCHA Fund’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead plaintiff’s counsel. It DENIED ECU Fund’s motion for the same relief. NYHTCHA Fund was appointed lead plaintiff, and Robbins Geller was appointed lead counsel. The court also directed Robbins Geller and defense counsel to confer and submit a proposed schedule for an amended complaint and the defendants’ response by September 2, 2025.

Judge

The opinion was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.