2:24-cv-11021
C.D. Cal.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Saleh brought a class action against AstraZeneca PLC and individual executives, alleging securities fraud related to misstatements about insurance fraud in China.
- The class consists of investors who bought AstraZeneca American Depository Shares (ADSs) on NASDAQ during the specified class period.
- Competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed by two groups: the Institutional Investor Funds (C+F and Universal Invest) and the Pension Funds (Teamsters Local 710 and St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System).
- The Institutional Investor Funds suffered the largest financial loss by far among the movants (over $10 million).
- The main arguments against the Institutional Investor Funds were alleged deficiencies in required disclosures and questions about the authority of their representatives.
- The court decided the motions based on written submissions without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who should be appointed as Lead Plaintiff under PSLRA? | Pension Funds: Institutional Investor Funds lacked compliance | Institutional Investor Funds: largest financial interest, compliant | Institutional Investor Funds appointed |
| Did Institutional Investor Funds fail to disclose all required transactions? | Pension Funds: Failed to disclose all relevant securities | Institutional Investor Funds: Only ADSs on NASDAQ subject to complaint | Institutional Investor Funds satisfied disclosure requirements |
| Did Institutional Investor Funds’ signatories have proper authority? | Pension Funds: Signatories lacked binding authority | Institutional Investor Funds: Submitted proper certifications & law | Institutional Investor Funds’ authority and filings sufficient |
| Should Institutional Investor Funds’ choice of counsel be approved (DiCello Levitt)? | Pension Funds had own preference | Institutional Investor Funds: Chose DiCello, experienced firm | DiCello Levitt approved as Lead Counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002) (establishes the three-step PSLRA process for appointing lead plaintiff in securities cases)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (typicality under Rule 23(a) does not require identical claims)
- In re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 693 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1982) (adequacy of class counsel and representative under Rule 23)
- McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1981) (circumstance-dependent inquiry for adequacy of class representation)