Noor v. Calix

Background

Waseem Noor filed a proposed securities-fraud class action against Calix, Inc. and individual Calix executives. He alleges that, beginning January 28, 2026, the defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions about Calix’s cloud and software platforms, systems, and services. In particular, he alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that Calix’s first-quarter results benefited significantly from advance purchases of memory components, that those supplies were declining, and that Calix faced negative margin pressure because it had to buy memory components at increasing market prices.

Noor seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Calix securities from January 28 through April 21, 2026. He asked the court to appoint him as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and to approve his selection of Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP as lead counsel. The response deadline passed without opposition, and no competing motion was filed.

Lead Plaintiff Analysis

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires the court to appoint the class member who is most capable of adequately representing the proposed class. The court follows a three-step process: it verifies that the required notice was published, identifies the applicant with the largest financial interest, and evaluates whether that applicant satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), especially typicality and adequacy.

The court found that the statutory notice requirements were satisfied. Notice was published on May 27, 2026, the same day Noor filed the complaint, and it described the action, the claims, the class period, and the 60-day deadline for seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. Noor filed his motion within that period.

Noor submitted a sworn declaration stating that he bought 450 net shares of Calix stock during the class period and allegedly lost $26,931.14 because of Calix’s alleged fraud. Because he was the only applicant and his motion was unopposed, the court found that he necessarily had the largest financial interest among the applicants.

The court also found that Noor made the required initial showing of typicality and adequacy. His claims were typical because, like other proposed class members, he alleged that he bought Calix securities at an inflated price because of the defendants’ allegedly false or misleading statements or omissions and suffered losses after corrective disclosures. The court found no known conflicts between Noor and the proposed class. It also relied on his efforts to seek appointment and his statement that he had managed his own investments for more than 30 years as evidence that he and his counsel would pursue the case diligently.

No class member submitted proof that Noor could not fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests or that he faced unique defenses preventing him from serving as lead plaintiff. The court therefore appointed Noor as the presumptively most adequate plaintiff.

Lead Counsel

The law requires the lead plaintiff to select and retain counsel, subject to court approval. Noor selected Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP. The court found that the firm had significant experience representing plaintiffs in similar securities-fraud class actions and that Noor’s choice was facially reasonable. Because no party argued otherwise, the court deferred to Noor’s selection and appointed the firm as lead counsel.

Disposition

The court granted Noor’s motion. It appointed Waseem Noor as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP as lead counsel. The opinion did not decide the underlying allegations of securities fraud or whether the proposed class would ultimately prevail.