March 11, 2005

Promoting Institutional Investors

Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff in a securities class action is presumptively the party with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class (i.e., the movant who alleges the most potential damages). The presumption may be rebutted, however, by a showing that this party will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses not applicable to other class members. In creating this provision, Congress sought to encourage the participation of institutional investors as lead plaintiffs.

An open question is to what extent this legislative history, as opposed to the plain language of the "largest financial interest" presumption, should influence a court in its selection of a lead plaintiff. To put it another way, what happens when the mechanism created by Congress does not result in the preferred outcome? In two recent cases, courts appear to have been swayed heavily by Congressional intent.

In Malasky v. IAC/Interactive Corp., 2004 WL 2980085 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2004), the court found that an individual investor had the largest financial stake in the case and was otherwise qualified to act as lead plaintiff. Nevertheless, the court held that because the individual investor was "not an institutional investor," he would be paired with an institutional investor as co-lead plaintiff.

Taking this analysis even a step further, in In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 238073 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 26, 2005), the court rejected an institutional investor, at least in part, because it was not a pension fund. Based on a statement in the House Conference Report on the PSLRA, the court found that the "PSLRA prefers pension funds."

There has already been one appellate decision, on a writ of mandamus, holding that "a straightforward application of the [PSLRA lead plaintiff] statutory scheme . . . provides no occasion for comparing plaintiffs with each other on any basis other than their financial stake in the case." See In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002). More appellate courts may be asked to take up this issue in the future.

Posted by Lyle Roberts at March 11, 2005 7:32 PM | TrackBack
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):