Securities – Class action – Appointment of lead plaintiff

Listen to this article

Where a federal securities class action has been brought, a plaintiff claiming to have suffered a loss of $675,707.12 should be appointed as lead plaintiff.

“… Currently before the Court are two motions to appoint a lead plaintiff and to approve the movants’ respective selections of lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (‘PSLRA’), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B). … For the reasons stated herein, Robert Falk’s (‘Falk’) motion for his appointment as lead plaintiff, [ECF No. 17], and for approval of his selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (‘GPM’) as Lead Counsel and Andrews DeValerio LLP as Liaison Counsel, [ECF No. 17], is granted, and the competing motion filed by Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System (‘OPPRS’), [ECF No. 14], is denied. …

“Here, Falk claims to have suffered a loss of $675,707.12, [ECF No. 18 at 6], which is larger than that of OPPRS, which claims to have suffered a $224,389 loss. … The Court finds Falk’s acquisition and continued ownership of Evolv shares through the class period adequately documented and further finds that he has a larger financial interest in this litigation than OPPRS.

“… Falk’s claims are typical because, like the other putative class members, he owned Evolv shares when the company allegedly made misleading statements of material facts or omitted facts that made its assertions misleading, and he claims to have suffered damages as a result of the decline in the value of his securities when Evolv’s purported misrepresentations and omissions were revealed. …

“… Falk has selected GPM as Lead Counsel and Andrews DeValerio LLP as Liaison Counsel. … GPM has solid experience in litigating complex class actions, [ECF No. 18 at 7-8], and no party has disputed the adequacy of his proposed Lead Counsel or Liaison Counsel. Moreover, Falk is an adequate lead plaintiff given his attestations that he is willing to serve as a class representative and be deposed and testify at trial, if necessary. … He further attests that he ‘did not purchase the Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. securities … at the direction of plaintiffs’ counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under this title.’ … Falk therefore satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) at this stage.”

Raby v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-450-24) (6 pages) (Burroughs, J.) (Docket No. 1:24-cv-10761) (Sept. 20, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.