Thurber v. Graphic Packaging Holding Company

Background

Michael Thurber brought a proposed securities class action against Graphic Packaging Holding Company and certain officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. It alleges that, during the proposed class period of February 4, 2025, through February 2, 2026, the defendants made materially false or misleading statements or failed to disclose information about Graphic Packaging’s inventory management, demand and sales volumes, costs, business model, operations, and financial guidance.

The court’s opinion addressed which investor should serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and which law firm should serve as lead counsel. Three people or entities sought appointment: Steven Probst, Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan, and Louis Oden III. Probst and Oden later filed notices stating that they did not oppose SHEPP’s motion.

Lead Plaintiff

The court explained that the Act creates a presumption in favor of the “most adequate plaintiff”—the movant with the largest financial interest who also makes the required preliminary showing under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That presumption can be rebutted by proof that the proposed lead plaintiff would not fairly and adequately protect the class or faces unique defenses that would prevent adequate representation.

The court found that SHEPP timely filed its motion after the required public notice. It also found that SHEPP had the largest financial interest among the three movants, with approximately $2.1 million in alleged losses. At this stage, the court considered whether SHEPP had made a preliminary showing of typicality and adequacy. The court found that SHEPP’s claims arose from the same alleged statements and omissions as the other proposed class members’ claims, and that nothing indicated a conflict of interest, a unique defense, or another problem impairing SHEPP’s ability to represent the proposed class.

Because no party offered evidence to rebut the presumption, the court appointed SHEPP as lead plaintiff.

Lead Counsel

The court stated that a lead plaintiff selects class counsel subject to court approval. It approved SHEPP’s selection of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP because the firm had substantial experience prosecuting securities-fraud class actions and had served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous other securities cases.

Disposition

The court granted SHEPP’s unopposed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Labaton as lead counsel. It adjourned the conference scheduled for July 22, 2026, directed the parties to submit by July 31, 2026, a joint letter addressing a schedule for any amendment to the operative complaint and briefing on potential motions to dismiss, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 10, 15, and 18.