In re Waste Management Securities Litigation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-04838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In United Industrial Workers Pension Plan v. Waste Management, Judge Schofield appointed the Pension Plans lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller lead counsel.
The order determines who will represent the proposed investor class in the litigation: the Pension Plans as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller as lead counsel. It also assigns lead counsel responsibility for managing the case; it does not resolve the securities claims against the defendants.
What happened
In In re Waste Management Securities Litigation, the United Industrial Workers Pension Plan brought a securities class action alleging that Waste Management, Inc. and four individuals violated federal securities laws. The Pension Plans moved to be appointed to represent the proposed class, and no competing motion or opposition was filed.
The court found that the Pension Plans filed their motion on time, had approximately $105,858 in claimed losses, and appeared to meet the requirements for representing the class. Those requirements included having claims like the class members’ claims and being able to represent them fairly and adequately.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield appointed the Pension Plans as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller as lead counsel. The order addressed leadership of the lawsuit and did not decide whether the defendants violated the securities laws.
The detailed version
- In re Waste Management Securities Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-04838
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
United Industrial Workers Pension Plan filed a securities class action against Waste Management, Inc.; James C. Fish, Jr.; Devina A. Rankin; John J. Morris; and Leslie K. Nagy. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The case concerned allegedly false and misleading statements that inflated the price of Waste Management notes.
United Industrial Workers Pension Plan, the Seafarers Officers & Employees Pension Plan, and the Seafarers Money Purchase Pension Plan, collectively called the “Pension Plans,” moved for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. They also asked the court to approve Robbins Geller as lead counsel. The motion was unopposed, and no competing motion for lead-plaintiff appointment was filed.
Lead Plaintiff
The court explained that the law creates a presumption in favor of the applicant with the largest financial interest that timely sought appointment and satisfies the relevant requirements for class representation. The Pension Plans timely moved after publication of the required notice. They reported approximately $105,858 in losses from their purchases of Waste Management redeemable senior notes and stated that they were unaware of any other plaintiff with a larger financial interest.
The court also found that the Pension Plans appeared to satisfy the two relevant preliminary class-representation requirements. First, their claims were typical because they arose from the same alleged conduct as the claims of other proposed class members. Second, they appeared adequate because there was no indication of a conflict with the class or that their selected counsel could not represent the class capably.
Lead Counsel and Disposition
The court found that Robbins Geller had significant experience in securities litigation and appointed it as lead counsel. The court’s order appointed the Pension Plans as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller as lead counsel. It assigned lead counsel responsibilities including preparing pleadings, briefing and arguing motions, conducting discovery and depositions, negotiating settlements, handling pretrial proceedings and trial, and supervising other matters concerning the prosecution or resolution of the action.
The Clerk of Court was directed to amend the caption to “In re Waste Management Securities Litigation” and close the motion at Docket No. 13. The order did not decide the underlying allegations or whether the defendants violated the securities laws.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.