Young v. Solana Labs, Inc.
- James Donato
- 5:22-cv-03912
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Young v. Solana Labs, Inc., Judge Donato granted Mark Young’s motion to lead the putative class and appoint lead counsel.
Mark Young and the proposed class he represents; Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP was approved as lead counsel. The order also requires further action before the case proceeds.
What happened
In Young v. Solana Labs, Inc., Mark Young asked to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed class and to appoint his lawyers as lead counsel. The court found that he had the largest financial interest in the requested relief and met the relevant class-representation requirements.
The court granted Young’s motion. It appointed him lead plaintiff and approved Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as lead counsel for the proposed class.
Judge Donato ordered Young to file an amended complaint by January 12, 2024, with any challenged allegedly false or misleading statements identified in a chart. The court administratively closed the case while awaiting that filing.
The detailed version
- Young v. Solana Labs, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-03912
- James Donato
- Nov. 13, 2023
Background
This order addressed who would represent the proposed class in the securities action. Mark Young moved to serve as lead plaintiff and to appoint lead counsel.
Ruling
The court granted Young’s motion. Under the Securities Act, the court appointed Young as lead plaintiff for the putative class. The opinion says that the action’s pendency had been published as required, that no one disputed Young had the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and that he otherwise satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The court also approved Young’s selected and retained counsel, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, to serve as lead counsel for the putative class.
Next steps
The court ordered Young to file an amended complaint by January 12, 2024. If that complaint challenges statements as false or misleading under the securities laws, the challenged statements must be identified in chart form as part of the complaint. The case was administratively closed pending the amended complaint. This order did not decide the underlying securities claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.