BIONDOLILLO v. ROCHE HOLDING AG
3:17-cv-04056
D.N.J.Sep 22, 2017Background:
- Securities class action filed June 6, 2017 against Roche Holding AG and two officers for alleged false/misleading statements about breast cancer treatments that inflated stock price.
- Plaintiff (Biondolillo) brought claims under §10(b), §20(a), and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of purchasers during the class period (March 2–June 5, 2017).
- Notice required by the PSLRA was published on BusinessWire the day the complaint was filed and set an August 7, 2017 deadline for lead plaintiff motions.
- Kevin Gardeck moved to be appointed lead plaintiff, asserting he purchased 10,250 shares, spent $329,955, and suffered $7,490 in losses; no other class members or defendants opposed the motion.
- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was proposed as lead counsel; the firm drafted the complaint and has extensive experience in securities class actions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSLRA notice adequacy | Notice published timely on BusinessWire and met PSLRA content requirements | No opposition | Notice satisfied PSLRA standards; adequate. |
| Who has largest financial interest | Gardeck purchased most shares and claims the greatest loss | No other movants came forward to dispute | Gardeck establishes sufficiently significant financial interest; presumptive lead plaintiff. |
| Rule 23 typicality and adequacy | Gardeck shares same claims/injury and is willing to serve; retained experienced counsel | No opposition | Prima facie typicality and adequacy satisfied. |
| Approval of lead counsel | Rosen Law Firm competent and experienced in securities class actions | No opposition | Court approves Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001) (PSLRA lead-plaintiff selection framework and Rule 23 typicality/adequacy standards)
- In re Merck & Co., Inc. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2005) (court reviews lead plaintiff’s choice of counsel under PSLRA)
- Topping v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA, 95 F. Supp. 3d 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (timing requirement for lead plaintiff motions under PSLRA)