Gilbert v. Azure Power Global Limited
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-07432
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gilbert v. Azure Power, Judge Woods denied Yannick Sabourin’s motion to serve as lead plaintiff after he acknowledged lacking the largest financial interest.
Yannick Sabourin’s request to serve as lead plaintiff was denied. The court stated that this did not affect his membership in the proposed class or his right to share in any recovery; the opinion does not state the disposition of the competing motions.
What happened
Gilbert v. Azure Power concerned competing requests to represent a proposed group of investors in a securities lawsuit against Azure Power Global Limited and several individuals.
Yannick Sabourin asked the court to appoint him as lead plaintiff and approve Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. He later stated that he did not have the largest financial interest in the case.
Judge Gregory Woods denied Sabourin’s motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The ruling did not affect Sabourin’s membership in the proposed group or his right to share in any recovery.
The detailed version
- Gilbert v. Azure Power Global Limited · No. 1:22-cv-07432
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
Carson D. Gilbert brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Azure Power Global Limited, Ranjit Gupta, Alan Rosling, Harsh Shah, and Pawan Kumar Agrawal. The opinion concerns proposed investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Azure Power securities between June 15, 2021, and August 26, 2022.
Motion
On October 31, 2022, Yannick Sabourin moved under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to be appointed lead plaintiff. He also asked the court to approve Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel for the proposed class. After reviewing competing motions, Sabourin filed a notice stating that he did not have the largest financial interest in the litigation and would not oppose the competing motions.
Ruling
The court denied Sabourin’s motion to serve as lead plaintiff because he recognized that he did not have the largest financial interest required by the Act. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket No. 21. The court stated that the denial did not affect Sabourin’s membership in the proposed class or his right to share in any recovery obtained for class members. The opinion does not state how the court ruled on the competing motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.