Jiang v. Avaya Holdings Corp.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-01258
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jiang v. Avaya Holdings Corp., Judge Gardephe ordered Pittsburgh and Sweatt to provide information relevant to pending lead-plaintiff motions.
The City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund and Paul Sweatt, whose pending lead-plaintiff motions were the subject of the required submissions.
What happened
In Jiang v. Avaya Holdings Corp., the court addressed two pending motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. The order did not decide which plaintiff should be appointed.
The court directed the City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund to explain why certain alleged disclosures made before its June 27, 2022 sale of Avaya Holdings Corp. shares qualify as corrective disclosures. Paul Sweatt was directed to respond and clarify his total-loss calculation.
Judge Gardephe set January 26, 2024, as Pittsburgh’s deadline and February 2, 2024, as Sweatt’s response deadline. The order required these submissions but did not otherwise resolve the lead-plaintiff motions.
The detailed version
- Jiang v. Avaya Holdings Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-01258
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 19, 2024
What the Order Addressed
The court considered pending motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff. The opinion identifies the moving plaintiffs as the City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund, referred to as “Pittsburgh,” and Paul Sweatt.
Required Submission from Pittsburgh
The court directed Pittsburgh to submit a filing by January 26, 2024, addressing why alleged disclosures made before Pittsburgh’s June 27, 2022 sale of shares in Avaya Holdings Corp. constitute “corrective disclosures.” The court cited the Second Circuit’s discussion of that term in Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.
Required Response from Sweatt
The court directed Sweatt to respond by February 2, 2024. The response must also clarify the calculation of his total loss in light of the analysis applied in Sallustro v. CannaVest Corp.
Effect of the Order
The order set deadlines for additional submissions concerning the pending lead-plaintiff motions. It did not state that either Pittsburgh or Sweatt was appointed lead plaintiff, and it did not otherwise resolve those motions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.