Corwin v. Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-00431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Corwin v. Y-mAbs, Judge Furman set deadlines for lead-plaintiff motions and scheduled a conference in the securities class action.
The proposed class representatives, potential class members, defendants, and attorneys involved in the securities class action were affected by the deadlines, notice procedures, service requirement, and scheduled conference.
What happened
In Corwin v. Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc., Robert Corwin brought a proposed class action for people who purchased the company's securities between October 6, 2020, and October 28, 2022. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws.
The court said that notice of the case was published on January 18, 2023. It set March 20, 2023, as the deadline for class members to seek appointment as lead plaintiff and April 3, 2023, as the deadline to oppose those motions. The court also barred reply filings without permission.
Judge Jesse M. Furman scheduled an April 18 conference to consider motions about the lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and combining related cases. The order set procedures for possible amended or related complaints and required the named plaintiffs to serve the order on the defendants; it did not decide the securities claims.
The detailed version
- Corwin v. Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00431
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 23, 2023
Background
Robert Corwin filed a proposed class action on January 18, 2023, on behalf of purchasers of Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc. securities during the period from October 6, 2020, through October 28, 2022. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires the plaintiff in this type of securities class action to publish notice of the case, the claims, and the proposed class period. Class members may then ask to serve as lead plaintiff, meaning the class member the court determines is most capable of adequately representing the class. If multiple substantially similar actions are filed and a party seeks to combine them, the court must decide the consolidation request before appointing a lead plaintiff.
Order
Plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the required notice was published on January 18,
- The court therefore ordered that motions by class members seeking appointment as lead plaintiff be served and filed by March 20,
- Opposition to those motions must be served and filed by April 3,
- No reply may be filed without the court's prior permission.
The court ordered a remote telephone conference for April 18, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. to consider motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation of related actions. The court also directed counsel to notify it within one week if an amended complaint or related case is filed before a lead plaintiff is appointed, identify differences from the original complaint, and explain why the court should not require the notice to be published again and set a new deadline for lead-plaintiff motions.
The named plaintiffs were ordered to promptly serve a copy of the order on each defendant. The order addressed case-management and lead-plaintiff procedures; it did not resolve the alleged securities-law violations or determine whether the proposed class would ultimately be certified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.