18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 463 for Defendants in the non-federal securities actions, must file a joint status report proposing procedural and/or other next steps they requested the Court should take to ensure the just and efficient disposition of the non- federal securities cases in the MDL. Id . at *29. For these reasons, the Court granted lead counsel for the MDL. In Re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199545 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2021). Plaintiffs in a multi-district class action alleged that Defendant Robinhood attempted to slow the growth of GameStop stock by denying customers the ability to use its services by abruptly removing the stock from the Robinhood app in order to manipulate the market for the express benefit of people and financial institutions who were not Robinhood customers. Plaintiffs contended that the trading restrictions created a one-way sell situation and resulted in a steep decline in share prices for GameStop stock, which caused Plaintiffs to suffer economic injury and allowed institutional investors to cover their short positions in these securities. The Court previously had appointed four law firms to serve as lead counsel. Subsequently, the Court reviewed the petitions of two lead Plaintiffs, and selected Plaintiff Laine-Beveridge as the Lead Plaintiff. The Court determined that Laine- Beveridge had the largest net loss of $122,383.49 on 60,128 shares of the affected securities because of Defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct, with a total investment of $448,735.79. Id . at *24. Plaintiffs Kurdi and Pueyrredon claimed combined maximum losses of only $16,239.70 on a total of approximately 727.08 of the affected securities, with a total investment of $27,268.27. Id . Laine-Beveridge also made a sufficient preliminary showing that his claims were typical of the class, as like all class members, he purchased shares of the affected securities on the Robinhood platform; owned shares of the affected securities at the time Robinhood restricted trading of those securities on its platform; and suffered damages as a result. Id . at *25. The Court noted that Laine-Beveridge was willing to serve as lead Plaintiff and vigorously prosecute the action and his selected counsel was well-versed in securities litigation. Id . at *27. Finally, the Court held that there no indication that Laine-Beveridge’s interests were antagonistic to the interests of the other putative class members. Id . Consequently, the Court found that Laine-Beveridge was the most adequate lead Plaintiff with the Rosen Law Firm to serve as Lead Counsel. The Court noted that the Rosen Law Firm had extensive experience in prosecuting securities class actions and was well qualified to represent the class. Id . at *32. In Re Zoom Securities Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70506 (N.D. Cal. April 12, 2021). Plaintiff, an investor, filed a putative securities fraud class action alleging that videoconferencing company Zoom made false and misleading statements concerning its data privacy and security risks. Three competing motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff were subsequently filed by Adam Butt, Lawrence Jaynes and the Zoom investors group. The Court granted the position to Butt as the Lead Plaintiff. The Court based on its ruling on the bounce- back provision in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSARA”) in determining which applicant had the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Zoom Investor Group (“Zoom Group”) filed a motion to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order appointing Butt as Lead Plaintiff, which the Court denied. The Court determined that no new case law or material facts presented as a basis for revisiting the appointment of Butt as Lead Plaintiff, and no "manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments" in the original proceedings had been shown. Id . at *2. The Court ruled that the Zoom Group did not offer a good reason for the Court to revisit the appointment, or to replace Butt because Butt had the "largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class." Id . The Zoom Group contended that the PSARA damages cap should be calculated based solely on "the final corrective disclosure," or the date that the stock price was no longer artificially inflated by fraud. Id. at *3. The Court, however, determined that the single disclosure approach was neither rational nor consistent under the circumstances. Id . at *4. The Court also explained that the legislative history of the PSARA recognized consideration of multiple disclosure dates. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration of it selection of the Lead Plaintiff. Miller, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201638 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs in consolidated class actions filed on behalf of those who purchased or leased in California certain Ford vehicles allegedly equipped uniformly defective engines that were designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by Ford filed a motion for appointment of Lead Counsel. The Court granted the motion. In granting lead counsel status, the Court reviewed: (i) the work class counsel had done in identifying or investigating potential claims in this action; (ii) class counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in this action; (iii) class counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that class counsel will commit to representing the class. After reviewing the relevant factors, the Court granted