INDUSTRIENS PENSIONSFORSIKRING v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY
2:20-cv-02155
| D.N.J. | Jun 9, 2020Background
- Plaintiff filed a securities class action under the Exchange Act/PSLRA alleging Becton made misleading statements and omissions about software problems with its Alaris infusion pump, inflating stock price during Nov. 5, 2019–Feb. 5, 2020; shares fell after disclosures on Feb. 6, 2020.
- Complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) on behalf of purchasers during the Class Period.
- Three movants sought appointment as lead plaintiff; one withdrew, leaving Michael Kim (individual/options trader) and Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S (institutional investor).
- Industriens claimed approximately $828,718 in losses; Kim claimed about $143,045.
- Court applied the PSLRA framework: appoint the movant with the largest financial interest who also satisfies Rule 23 typicality and adequacy; Industriens moved to appoint counsel Kessler Topaz (lead) and Carella Byrne (liaison).
- Court appointed Industriens as Lead Plaintiff, approved its counsel selections, and denied Kim’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the PSLRA "most adequate" lead plaintiff? | Industriens: largest losses and satisfies Rule 23 typicality/adequacy. | Kim: contested leadership, sought co-lead status. | Industriens appointed as lead plaintiff (largest financial interest; prima facie typicality/adequacy). |
| Should Kim be appointed co-lead because he traded options and may be only one with standing on options claims? | Kim: only movant with options trading standing; offers complementary perspective. | Industriens: PSLRA calls for single lead; any gaps addressed via additional named plaintiffs; no authority for co-lead based on options status. | Court rejected co-lead proposal; PSLRA does not require separate lead for every claim; Kim failed to rebut presumption. |
| Is Industriens’s choice of class counsel appropriate? | Industriens: Kessler Topaz and Carella Byrne are experienced securities class counsel. | Kim: offered no persuasive objection to counsel selection. | Court approved Kessler Topaz as Lead Counsel and Carella Byrne as Liaison Counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001) (describes PSLRA presumption and confines lead-plaintiff inquiry to prima facie typicality and adequacy under Rule 23).
- Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc., 366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004) (explains that a lead plaintiff may lack standing on some claims and that appointing separate lead plaintiffs for each claim would frustrate PSLRA’s purpose).
- Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013) (observes it is inevitable a lead plaintiff may not have standing to sue on every claim and endorses single-lead approach).