McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-07251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., Judge Oetken appointed Matis Nayman and his chosen firm, while denying six other applicants’ motions.
Matis Nayman was appointed lead plaintiff, and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP was appointed lead counsel. The other identified movants’ motions were denied.
What happened
In McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., Matis Nayman asked to become lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and asked the court to appoint Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as lead counsel. Six other applicants had also sought lead-plaintiff status, but they withdrew, did not oppose Nayman’s request, or otherwise failed to oppose it.
The court said Nayman had the largest financial interest, reporting losses of $208,155.46 during the class period. The court also found that he had made the required preliminary showing that his claims were typical of the class’s claims and that he could adequately represent the class. The court found the proposed law firm competent and experienced.
Judge Oetken granted Matis Nayman’s motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The court denied the motions of Devang Patel, William Bloomfield, Buford Tuttle Capital, LLC, Ming Xing Zhang, and Felipe de Castro Luna, and directed the clerk to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07251
- Katharine Parker
- May 26, 2022
Background
Matis Nayman moved for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and requested that Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP be appointed lead counsel. Six other movants initially sought appointment as lead plaintiff: Devang Patel, William Bloomfield, Buford Tuttle Capital, LLC, Ming Xing Zhang, and Felipe de Castro Luna, along with another movant identified in the opinion’s procedural history. The opinion states that the other movants withdrew their motions, filed notices of non-opposition, or otherwise failed to oppose Nayman’s appointment.
Lead Plaintiff
The Act directs the court to appoint the member or members of the proposed class who are most capable of adequately representing the class’s interests. Courts ordinarily consider whether the applicant filed a complaint or moved for lead-plaintiff status, has the largest financial interest, and satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The court found that Nayman had the largest financial interest. The opinion states that he lost $208,155.46 during the class period, which was the highest amount among the movants. The court also found that Nayman made a preliminary showing of typicality and adequacy. Typicality concerns whether the applicant suffered the same type of injury as other class members from the defendants’ conduct and brings claims based on the same legal issues. Adequacy concerns whether the applicant’s claims conflict with the class’s claims and whether class counsel is qualified and able to conduct the litigation.
Because the motion was unopposed, the court granted it on that basis. The court also stated that Nayman was the member most capable of adequately representing the class.
Lead Counsel
The Act allows the most adequate plaintiff, subject to court approval, to select and retain counsel for the class. Nayman selected Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. The court found the firm competent and experienced and appointed it lead counsel.
Disposition
The court granted Matis Nayman’s motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. It denied the motions of Devang Patel, William Bloomfield, Buford Tuttle Capital, LLC, Ming Xing Zhang, and Felipe de Castro Luna to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, and 24.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.