In re VEON Ltd. Securities Litigation

Background

On April 29, 2022, the court appointed Boris Lvov as lead plaintiff in the securities litigation. Three proposed lead plaintiffs, referred to collectively as SKS, moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3. They argued that language in a Second Circuit decision, Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of America Corp., required the court to reach a different result and that appointing Lvov instead of SKS was a clear legal error.

SKS had previously argued that the time limits for their individual and class claims should be paused under American Pipe and China Agritech. The court explained that those decisions allow time-limit pausing for individual claims in certain circumstances, but do not require a court to allow a later class representative or lead plaintiff in every situation. The court also noted that the Second Circuit language cited by SKS concerned constitutional standing and the “nullity doctrine,” and that its discussion of American Pipe and equitable tolling was an alternative, nonbinding observation rather than a controlling holding.

Reconsideration standard and analysis

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring the moving party to identify controlling decisions or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably have changed the result. It may also be available for an intervening change in controlling law, clear error, or to prevent manifest injustice.

The court found that SKS had not identified a new or intervening controlling authority and had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or relevant facts. It also found that Fund Liquidation Holdings did not establish clear error or compel a different outcome. Relying in part on the reasoning of Dennis v. JP Morgan Chase, the court was concerned about allowing plaintiffs to recruit new class representatives piecemeal after an existing representative could no longer proceed. The court concluded that equitable tolling did not prohibit adding a new lead plaintiff or class representative, but also did not require that result without considering diligence, efficiency, and finality.

Disposition

The court denied SKS’s motion for reconsideration. Boris Lvov remained the lead plaintiff, and the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint by March 20, 2023. The court dismissed ECF 201 as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF 190, 192, and 201. Because the order addressed reconsideration of an earlier appointment rather than deciding the underlying securities claims, this is a procedural order.