MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)
LAURA M. ANDRACCHIO (187773)
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
- and -
KAREN T. ROGERS (185465)
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 4170
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213/617-9007
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN E.
CAULEY, P.A.
STEVEN E. CAULEY
SCOTT E. POYNTER
Suite 218, Cypress Plaza
2200 Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.C.
STEVEN J. TOLL
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206/521-0080
[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT SCHMIDT, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
P-COM, INC., GEORGE P. ROBERTS, PIER G.
ANTONIUCCI, MICHAEL J. SOPHIE, KENNETH E. BEAN, III,
JOHN R. WOOD, GILL COGAN and JOHN A. HAWKINS,
Defendants.
___________________________________
No. C-98-04412-SC
CLASS ACTION
DATE AND TIME: Matter Submitted
On Papers, No Oral Argument
COURTROOM: The Honorable
Samuel Conti
NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT THE P-COM GROUP
AS LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO §21D(a)(3)(B) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND FOR
APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
III. SUMMARY OF ACTION
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The P-Com Group Should Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff
1. The P-Com Group Believes It Has The Largest Financial Interest In The Relief Sought By The Class
2. The P-Com Group Is Qualified Under Rule 23
a. The Claims Of The P-Com Group Are Typical Of The Claims Of The Class
b. The P-Com Group Will Fairly And Adequately Represent The Interests Of The Class
B. This Court Should Approve The P-Com Group's Choice Of Co-Lead Counsel
V. CONCLUSION
TO: THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that movants(1) hereby move this Court under §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B), for the appointment of the P-Com Group as lead plaintiff in this action and to approve their selection of counsel. The Court has directed that this matter will be submitted on the papers without oral argument. In the event that the Court should deem oral argument to be necessary, then this matter will be heard on February 19, 1999 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, before the Honorable Samuel Conti, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.
This Motion is made on the grounds that the P-Com Group is the most adequate plaintiff, having suffered estimated losses of more than $6 million. In addition, the P-Com Group meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because its claims are typical of the class members' claims and the P-Com Group will fairly and adequately represent the class. Finally, the P-Com Group has selected and retained national law firms with substantial experience in prosecuting securities fraud class actions to serve as class counsel.
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the Declaration of Laura M. Andracchio in support thereof, the pleadings and other files herein, and such other written or oral argument as may be presented to the Court.
This securities class action was filed by plaintiff Robert Schmidt ("Schmidt") on November 13, 1998 against P-Com, Inc. ("P-Com") and seven of its officers and directors, for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Schmidt filed this action on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of P-Com between April 15, 1997 and September 11, 1998 (the "Class").
Movants,(2) members of the Class who collectively suffered over $13.6 million in losses from purchases of P-Com securities, submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their motion, pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), as amended by the PSLRA, for (1) appointment of lead plaintiff; and (2) approval of lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. Movants proffer the P-Com Group,(3) which consists of a group of 10 class members who together suffered over $6 million in losses, for appointment as lead plaintiff.
Section 21D of the Exchange Act, as amended by the PSLRA, sets forth the procedure for the selection of lead plaintiff to oversee class actions brought under the federal securities laws.(4) Specifically, §21D(a)(3)(A)(i) provides that, within 20 days after the date on which a class action is filed under the PSLRA,
the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class --
(I) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and
(II) that, not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act further directs this Court to consider any motions made by purported class members to appoint lead plaintiffs filed in response to any such notice, including any motion by a class member who is not individually named as a plaintiff in the complaint, by not later than 90 days after the date of publication. Under this provision of the Exchange Act, this Court "shall" appoint the "most adequate plaintiff" to serve as lead plaintiff and shall presume that such plaintiff is the person, or group of persons, that:
(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . . ;
(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and
(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).
The P-Com Group has sustained collective losses of over $6 million as a result of their purchases of P-Com securities during the Class Period. The P-Com Group believes that it has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class. See Andracchio Decl., Ex. 2.(5) Movants also request the Court to approve their choice of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP ("Milberg Weiss"), The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. (the "Cauley firm") and Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. ("Cohen Milstein") as co-lead counsel for the Class.
This securities fraud class action was filed on November 13, 1998. Movants believe that the instant action is the only action on file in this district against defendants based on the wrongdoing complained of in this action. The Exchange Act, as amended by the PSLRA, requires prompt publication of notice advising class members of their right to move within 60 days of publication to be appointed lead plaintiff. On November 13, 1998, pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Exchange Act, notice was published by Schmidt's counsel, Stull, Stull & Brody, in the Business Wire. Andracchio Decl., Ex. 3. That notice advised Class members of the existence of the lawsuit and described the claims asserted. See Id. This motion is timely filed within 60 days from the publication of that notice.
This action was brought by plaintiff Schmidt on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired P-Com securities during the Class Period. In his Complaint, Schmidt alleges that defendants(7) violated §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, by issuing a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period about P-Com's core point-to-point radio business, growth prospects and financial performance in order to artificially inflate the price of P-Com's common stock. Defendants' scheme permitted them to (1) sell over 672,000 of their personal P-Com holdings at prices as high as $23 per share for over $13.1 million; and (2) use $42 million worth of P-Com stock as currency to complete three acquisitions. ¶1.
Defendants' scheme to artificially inflate P-Com stock began to unravel in mid-May 1998, when rumors began to circulate in the market that P-Com's earnings would be below analysts' estimates for the second quarter of 1998. P-Com's stock began to decline precipitously, falling from $20 per share in mid-May to $7 in July, when defendants confirmed that P-Com would earn only $.01 per share for 2Q98 instead of expectations of $.15 per share. P-Com's stock, however, continued to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the balance of the Class Period as defendants continued to mislead the investing public, maintaining that P-Com's revenues would grow 13-14% in 1998. ¶2.
On September 11, 1998, P-Com finally revealed that it would completely restructure its business, cut its work force by 10%, cut management's pay by 10%, write off $5-$30 million in inventory, and experience declining 1998 sales. It was further announced that P-Com would suffer a $.39 loss in 3Q98 instead of previously forecasted break-even results. Upon these revelations, P-Com stock again collapsed and has since traded in the $2-$4 range, representing a 90% decline in price during the Class Period. ¶¶2, 70.
Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the PSLRA, provides that this Court:
[S]hall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the "most adequate plaintiff") in accordance with this subparagraph.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The statute further requires this Court to adopt a rebuttable presumption that:
the most adequate plaintiff in any private action arising under this chapter is the person or group of persons that --
(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . .;
(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and
(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) (emphasis added).
Thus, the statutory language explicitly provides that a "member or members" of the class or a "person or group of persons" may combine to constitute "the largest financial interest" entitled to presumptive appointment as lead plaintiff. According to the statute's plain language, individual plaintiffs (including institutions) may aggregate their losses in order to serve as the lead plaintiffs. See In re Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-96-2644-SBA, Order re Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, at 2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1997) (proposed lead plaintiffs can pool together their shares to form the largest financial interest). Andracchio Decl., Ex. 4.(8)
During the Class Period, the P-Com Group purchased P-Com securities at prices artificially inflated by defendants' materially false and misleading statements and have collectively suffered losses in excess of $6 million. Andracchio Decl., Ex. 2.(9) The P-Com Group believes it has the largest financial interest in the outcome of this litigation and, therefore, is presumptively entitled to appointment as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(bb).(10)
Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) of the Exchange Act provides that the lead plaintiff or plaintiffs must also "otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). With respect to the qualifications of the class representative, Rule 23(a) requires generally that the claims of the representative be typical of the claims of the class and that the representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. As detailed below, each member of the P-Com Group satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), and each is qualified to be appointed.
The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied when a class representative has: (a) suffered the same injuries as the absent class members; (b) as a result of the same course of conduct by defendants; and (c) the claims of the plaintiff and absent class members are based on the same legal issues. See, e.g., Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 668 (9th Cir. 1995), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996); In re Cirrus Logic Sec. Litig., 155 F.R.D. 654, 657 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Shields v. Smith, [1992 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶97,001, at 94,376 (N.D. Cal. 1992); In re Activision Sec. Litig., 621 F. Supp. 415, 428 (N.D. Cal. 1985). The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members include the following:
(a) Whether the federal securities laws were violated by defendants;
(b) Whether defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material facts to the public;
(c) Whether defendants knew, had reason to know or recklessly disregarded that their statements were false and misleading or failed to have a reasonable basis for those statements;
(d) Whether the price of P-Com stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period; and
(e) The extent of damage sustained by Class members and the appropriate measure of damages.
As a result, there is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved in this case, and the claims asserted by the P-Com Group are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed Class. The P-Com Group and members of the Class allege that defendants violated the Exchange Act by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading statements about P-Com during the Class Period. The P-Com Group, as did all of the members of the proposed Class, acquired P-Com securities at prices artificially inflated by defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, and were damaged thereby. Because the claims asserted by the P-Com Group are based on the same legal theories and arise "from the same event or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of other class members," typicality is satisfied. In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 251, 256 (C.D. Cal. 1988); accord Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 902-03 & n.19 (9th Cir. 1975).
The interests of the P-Com Group are clearly aligned with the members of the proposed Class, and there is no evidence of any antagonism between the interests of these individuals and members of the proposed Class. As detailed above, the P-Com Group shares substantially similar questions of law and fact with the members of the proposed Class, and its claims are typical of the members of the Class. Each of the members of the P-Com Group has amply demonstrated their adequacy as class representatives by signing a certification affirming their willingness to serve as, and assume the responsibilities of, a class representative. In addition, the P-Com Group has selected counsel highly experienced in prosecuting securities class actions such as this to represent them.
As of this filing, movants have not been served with any papers on behalf of any other applicant or applicant group for appointment as lead plaintiffs. Nor have movants received any notice that any other potential applicant or applicant group has sustained greater financial losses in connection with the purchase and sale of P-Com securities during the relevant time frame.
Accordingly, the P-Com Group satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 and all of the PSLRA's prerequisites for appointment as lead plaintiffs in this action, and should be so appointed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B).
The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject to this Court's approval. See §21D(a)(3)(B)(v). Thus, this Court should not disturb the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel unless necessary to "protect the interests of the class." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa). The P-Com Group has selected the law firms of Milberg Weiss, the Cauley firm and Cohen Milstein to serve as co-lead counsel for the Class. All three firms have extensive experience litigating securities class actions and have successfully prosecuted numerous securities fraud class actions on behalf of injured investors. See Andracchio Decl., Exs. 10-12.
For the foregoing reasons, movants respectfully request that this Court: (1) appoint the P-Com Group as lead plaintiff of the Class in the above-captioned action, pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, as amended; and (2) approve their selection of counsel.
DATED: January 11, 1999
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
WILLIAM S. LERACH
ALAN SCHULMAN
LAURA M. ANDRACCHIO
______________________________
LAURA M. ANDRACCHIO
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
KAREN T. ROGERS
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 4170
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213/617-9007
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN E.
CAULEY, P.A.
STEVEN E. CAULEY
SCOTT E. POYNTER
Suite 218, Cypress Plaza
2200 Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501/312-8500
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD
& TOLL, P.L.L.C.
STEVEN J. TOLL
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206/521-0080
[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G.
YATES, JR.
ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
519 Allegheny Building
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412/391-5164
SCHIFFRIN CRAIG &
BARROWAY, LLP
RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
ANDREW L. BARROWAY
Three Bala Plaza East
Suite 400
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: 610/667-7706
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK
JEFFREY R. KRINSK
501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/238-1333
LOWEY DANNENBERG BEMPORAD
& SELINGER, P.C.
RICHARD BEMPORAD
JEANNE D'ESPOSITO
The Gateway
One North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: 914/997-0500
WOLF POPPER LLP
PAUL O. PARADIS
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 212/759-4600
LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
MARC S. HENZEL
210 West Washington Square
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3503
Telephone: 215/625-9999
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC
NEIL ROTHSTEIN
1520 Spruce Street
Suite 308
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215/545-3226
SPECTOR & ROSEMAN, P.C.
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/338-4514
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
STEPHEN R. BASSER
600 West Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/230-0800
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD
D. KRANICH
RICHARD D. KRANICH
120 Broadway, Suite 1016
New York, NY 10271-0074
Telephone: 212/608-8965
WIRTZ & ASSOCIATES
D. JOSHUA STAUB
16161 Ventura Blvd. #669
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: 310/576-7770
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON &
LOUGHRAN
SHANNON P. KENIRY
The Foundry Bldg., Suite 601
1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: 202/337-8000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
P-COM\DCC05023.BRF
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 23-2(c)(2)
I, the undersigned, declare:
1. That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of San Diego, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested in the within action; that declarant's business address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, California 92101.
2. That on January 11, 1999, declarant served the NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT THE P-COM GROUP AS LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO §21D(a)(3)(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL by depositing a true copy thereof in a United States mailbox at San Diego, California in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed on the attached Service List and that this document was forwarded to the following designated Internet site at:
http://securities.milberg.com
3. That there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 11th day of January, 1999, at San Diego, California.
______________________________
DAWN C. CASSELMAN
1. Movants consist of a group of purchasers of P-Com, Inc. securities during the Class Period. For purposes of this motion, the Class Period is defined as April 15, 1997 through September 11, 1998.
2. Movants consist of a group of purchasers of P-Com securities during the period from April 15, 1997 to September 11, 1998 (the proposed "Class Period"). Movants have submitted the signed certifications required by §21D(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), which are attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura M. Andracchio in Support of the Motion To Appoint The P-Com Group as Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff's Counsel ("Andracchio Decl."), filed concurrently herewith. The PSLRA specifically authorizes class members, regardless of whether they have filed a complaint, to move for appointment of lead plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B). Movants are identified in the chart entitled "Movants' Purchases, Sales and Losses," Andracchio Decl. Ex. 2.
3. The P-Com Group consists of class members who have suffered substantial losses from purchases of P-Com securities, including Associated Capital L.P., Associated Offshore L.P., Keith Moore, Ron Schiff, DiBuduo Fruit Company, Carl Larsen, Cyrus A. Mayer (Trustee), Laszlo L. Rakoczi, Patrick Graham and Michael L. Greenberg.
4. In December 1995, Congress amended the Exchange Act by enactment of the PSLRA. These amendments are contained in §21D of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4.
5. In the alternative, if the P-Com Group does not have the largest loss, all movants seek to be appointed lead plaintiff, and proffer their collective losses of over $13.6 million based upon their purchases of P-Com securities during the Class Period.
6. This section is supported by the Summary section of the Class Action Complaint filed by Schmidt (the "Complaint").
7. Defendants are P-Com, George P. Roberts, Pier G. Antoniucci, Michael J. Sophie, Kenneth E. Bean, III, John R. Wood, Gill Cogan and John A. Hawkins.
8. See also City Nominees Ltd., et al. v. Macromedia, Inc., et al., No. C-97-3521-SC, Order re Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff, at 5-7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 1998) (proposed lead plaintiffs can pool together their shares to form the largest financial interest); In re Read-Rite Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C-97-20059-RMW, Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 1997) (same); Reiger v. Altris Software, Case No. 98cv0528J (JFS), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14705, at *18-*19 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 1998) (group of individuals selected as lead plaintiff); Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., et al., No. 3:96-CV-2258-T, Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Motion and Granting Joint Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, at 5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1997) (eleven individual plaintiffs with the largest financial interest collectively appointed lead plaintiff); Chan, et al. v. Orthologic Corp., et al., No. Civ. 96-1514 PHX RCB, Order, at 13 (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 1996) (plaintiffs from five separate actions collectively appointed lead plaintiff); Powers, et al. v. Eichen, et al., Civ. No. 96-1431-B(AJB), Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, at 1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 1996) (nine individual plaintiffs collectively appointed lead plaintiff). Andracchio Decl., Exs. 5-9.
9. The chart provides details of each movant's transactions in P-Com stock during the Class Period, including the losses suffered by each movant.
10. As noted above, if the Court determines that the P-Com Group does not have the largest financial interest among competing movants, Movants alternatively seek appointment of their entire group as lead plaintiff based on their collective loss of over $13.6 million.