O r SAL. a C (Ei[EDON' CM I. BY u 4 AUG 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Proceedings :

Transcription

1 C90e 2:17-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 1 of Case CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. V/ <No,,.. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v Amgen, Inc et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v Sharer, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v Amgen et al, CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v. Amgen et al. Inc CV PSG (PLAx)' Public Employees' Retirement Association of =.n, Colorado v. Amgen et al. Title Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. O r Date July 31, 2007 SAL a C (Ei[EDON' CM I AUG 2007 BY u 4 Present : The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy K. Hernandez Deputy Clerk Not Present Court Reporter n/a Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Not Present Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Proceedings : (In Chambers ) Order Consolidating Related Cases and Appointing Lead Plaintiff Before this Court are seven motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and for consolidation.' After the hearing on these motions on July 30, 2007, and having considered the moving and responsive papers, the Court CONSOLIDATES the related cases, and APPOINTS Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as lead plaintiff, and its attorneys as lead counsel. 1. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2007, Plaintiff Scott Kairalla ("Kairalla") filed a class action lawsuit against Amgen, ("Amgen") and several individual officers of Amgen (collectively with Amgen, "Defendants"), on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or acquired Amgen securities between May 4, 2005 and May 9, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and SEC Rule I Ob-5. (Comp. 1). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants disseminated a series of public statements that contained material misrepresentations and omitted material facts concerning the sale of several hundred million dollars worth of the drugs Aranesp and Epogen. (Comp. 4-5, 20, 34). The misrepresentations 'Originally nine motions were filed, but, as noted in footnote 2, two motions have since been 32--l withdrawn. CV-90 (06/04) Page 1 of 9

2 - : Case 2 : 07-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 2 of 9 Case No.. CV PSG (PLAx ): Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx ): Mendell v. Amgen, Inc, et al CV PSG (PLAx ): Jaffe v. Amgen, Inc et al. CV PSG (PLAx ): Durgin v. Sharer, et al. CV PSG (PLAx ): Elden v. Amgen et al CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v. Amgen et al Colorado v Amgen et al. -Date x Y^ ay; July 31,200-7't, "Title' '6 Kairalla v Amgen, et al and omissions allegedly caused the price of Amgen securities during the Class Period to be artificially inflated and resulted in damages to class members. (Comp. 20, 35). After Kairalla filed his Complaint, several other individuals and entities filed complaints in state and federal court, and also in the Central District of California with similar allegations against Amgen. These cases include CV , CV , CV , CV , CV , CV and CV On April 17, 2007, the same day that Kairalla filed his Complaint, he published a notice of pendency of the action over the national wire service Business Wire advising potential class members of the existence of the lawsuit and describing the claims asserted. (Barbara Hart Dec. in support of Connecticut Retirement 's Motion ("Hart Dec."), Ex, Q. Now, several plaintiffs and their attorneys have filed motions asking for the related cases to be consolidated and to be appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). These plaintiffs include: (1) John Feld, Douglas Ferguson, Sadie Jaffe, Robert Korostoff, and Steven Onderwyzer (collectively the "Jaffe Movants"), (2) The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 925 Pension Fund ("International Union"), (3) the Maine State Retirement System ("Maine Retirement"), (4) The Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado ("Colorado Retirement"), (5) AXA Winterthur Asset Management ("AXA"), (6) the Teacher's Retirement System of the State of Kentucky ("Kentucky Retirement') and (7) Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds ("Connecticut Retirement"). Two similar motions, one filed by the City of Boca Raton Police & Firefighter's Retirement System and the General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, and the second filed by the London Pension Fund Authority, City of Edinburgh Council on behalf of the Lothian Pension Funds and Wirral MBC on behalf of the Merseyside Pension Fund (collectively the "Public Funds"), have since been withdrawn? Plaintiff Kairalla has also 2The City of Boca Raton Police & Firefighter's Retirement System and the General Retirement S stem of the City of Detroit filed a Notice of Withdrawal of its Motion on June 26, Named CV-90 (06/04) Page 2 o

3 Case 2 : 07-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 3 of 9 Case CV PSG (PLAx ): Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. No. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v Amgen, et al CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v. Amgen, Inc et al CV PSG (PLAx). Durgin v Sharer, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v. Amgen et al CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v Amgen et al. na Inc Colorado v. Amgen et al. Date July 31, 2007; a ^ y Title Kairalla v. Amgen, et al withdrawn as the named plaintiff. II. MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION The PSLRA requires that, "[i]f more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this chapter has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes or for trial, the court shall not [appoint a lead plaintiff] until after the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered." 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 42(a) permits a court to consolidate cases for trial or other purposes when the actions "involv[e] common questions of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Although district courts have discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, they must consider the interest ofjudicial economy as well as the parties' interest in a fair and impartial procedure. Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, (2nd Cir. 1990). Here, there is no doubt that common questions of law and fact exist between the related actions. Each of the related actions is a shareholder class action alleging violations of federal securities laws by the same defendants and is brought on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased Amgen common stock during the Class Period. A review of the related complaints filed reveals that common allegations, relating to the defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions and the impact on the price of Amgen common stock, predominate. Therefore, because common questions of law and fact are present in the related actions, consolidation under FRCP 42(a) is proper. Furthermore, consolidation of the related lawsuits would avoid needless costs and delays. plaintiff Kairalla, The Public Funds, and their counsel Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP withdrew as named plaintiff, proposed lead plaintiffs and counsel for plaintiff in this action on July 3, CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MI NUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 9

4 Case 2 : 07-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31 /2007 Page 4 of 9 Case CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v. Amgen, Inc et al..,,no. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v Amgen, Inc et al CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v. Sharer, et al, CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v Amgen et al CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v Amgen et al. Colorado v Amgen et al. 4,! Jy Date July 31, 2007; Title, Kairalla v. Amgen, et al Consolidation would avoid duplication of effort by the parties during pretrial discovery and in trial. It would also allow for efficient administration of the litigation. Finally, no party has expressed opposition to consolidation. Therefore, the Court orders consolidation of the following eight, related cases : CV , CV , CV , CV , CV , CV , CV and CV III. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS A. Legal Standard for Appointment of Lead Counsel Under the PSLRA, a plaintiff has 20 days from the date the complaint is filed to publish a notice of the putative class action ' s pendency, claims, and purported class period "in a widely circulated national business -oriented publication or wire service." 15 U.S.C. 78u- 4(a)(3)(A)( I). If more than one action is filed, only the plaintiff or plaintiffs in the first-filed action are required to publish the notice. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii). Any member of the purported plaintiff class then has 60 days from the date on which the notice is published to file a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. Id. Within 90 days of the published notice, the court must appoint as lead plaintiff "the member or members of the purported class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members" (the "most adequate plaintiff '). Id., 78u-4( a)(3)(b)(i). In choosing a lead plaintiff, courts are required to adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is "the person or group of persons that - (aa) has either filed the complaint or 'The plaintiff in United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen, CV PSG (AGRx), did not file a motion to consolidate. However, the Court has determined that this case is a related case in this action, and therefore includes it in the consolidation. CV-90 (06104) Page 4 of 9

5 GI, Case 2:07-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 5 of 9 Casey "r' Title CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v Amgen, et al CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v Amgen, Inc et al CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v Sharer, et al CV PSG (PLAx) Elden v Amgen et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v Amgen et al. Colorado v. Amgen et al. Kairalla v. Amgen, et al..date July 31, se - U made a motion in response to [the publication of notice of the action], (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 presumption may only be rebutted "upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff - (aa) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or (bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class." 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted these provisions as setting forth a three-step process. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F. 3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). The first step involves publicizing the pendency of the action, the claims made, and the purported class period. Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)). Second, "the district court must consider the losses already suffered by the various plaintiffs before selecting as the presumptively most adequate plaintiff - and hence the presumptive lead plaintiff - the one who has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. at (internal quotation marks omitted). Once the district court has compared the various plaintiffs' financial stakes and determined which one "has the most to gain from the lawsuit," the court "must... focus its attention on that plaintiff and determine, based on the information he has provided in his pleadings and declarations, whether he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of `typicality' and `adequacy."' Id. at 730. If the plaintiff with the largest financial stake meets Rule 23's requirements, it becomes presumptively the most adequate plaintiff. Id. If it does not, "the court must repeat the inquiry, this time considering the plaintiff with the next-largest financial stake, until it finds a plaintiff who is both willing to serve and satisfies the requirements of Rule 23." Id, Third and finally, the court must "give other plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiffs showing that it satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements." Id. Under Cavanaugh, courts must engage in "a straightforward application of the statutory scheme [which] provides no basis for comparing plaintiffs with each other on any basis other than their financial stake in the case." Id. at 732. "Once that comparison is made and the court identifies the plaintiff with the largest stake in the litigation, further inquiry must focus on that plaintiff alone and be limited to CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUT ES - GENERAL Page 5 of 9

6 Case 2 : 07-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31 /2007 Page 6 of 9 Case `No. CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. Date July 31, 2007r CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v Amgen, et al CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v. Amgen, et al CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v. Sharer, et al CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v Amgen et al CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc et al, Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health & Welfare Fund v Amgen " 3 Yr Inc Colorado v. Amgen et al. 1.' Title Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. determining whether he satisfies the other statutory requirements," regardless of whether "the district court believes another plaintiff maybe `more typical' or `more adequate."' Id. Keeping these principles in mind, the Court now considers which moving plaintiff should be appointed as lead plaintiff. B. Lead Plaintiff in This Case 1. Step I - Timeliness ofmotion Connecticut Retirement appears to be the presumptive lead plaintiff, and it has satisfied the requirements in the first step of the test. Under the Exchange Act, the plaintiff in the firstfiled action must publish notice to potential class members. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii). On April 17, 2007, Kairalla provided notice through the Business Wire announcement. This triggered the 60 day time period within which other plaintiffs could move to be appointed lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(I). Connecticut Retirement timely filed its motion on June ' 2. Step 2 - Presumptive Lead Plaintiff With Largest Financial Stake and Who Satisfies Rule 23 Requirements Also, Connecticut Retirement is the presumptive lead plaintiff because it asserts the largest financial stake in the lawsuit. To determine which plaintiff has the largest financial stake, many courts consider three factors: (1) the number of shares purchased during the class period; (2) the total net funds expended during the class period; and (3) the approximate losses 'Since the 60'day deadline fell on June 16, 2007, a Saturday, Connecticut Retirement's motion, filed on the next date available for the Court to receive filings - Monday, June 18, was timely. CV-90 (06/04) Page 6 of 9

7 Case cv psg -PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 7 of 9 _ Case CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. Date No. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v. Amgen, Inc et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v. Share, et al. `:- CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v Amgen et al CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v Amgen Inc et al. Colorado v Amgen el al. July 31, 2007; Title` Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. suffered. See Ferrari v. Fisch, F.R.D. 599, 604 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Connecticut Retirement asserts that it purchased 1,027,056 more shares than it sold during the Class Period by expending $74,936,713 in net expenditures. (Connecticut Retirement's Motion, p. 8:8-13). In addition, Connecticut Retirement claims a loss of $21,462,434 using the FIFO ("first in, first out") accounting method, and $17,326,985 using the LIFO ("last in, first out") accounting method. (Id., p. 8:14-18). The other vying plaintiffs do not dispute Connecticut Retirement's contention that under factors 1 and 2, Connecticut Retirement far exceeds the other plaintiffs in number of shares purchased and total funds expended during the class period. Connecticut Retirement further appears to satisfy the requirements under FRCP 23 of typicality and adequacy of representation. The typicality requirement of FRCP 23 is satisfied when the representative plaintiffs claims arise out of the same event or course of conduct as do the other class members' claims and are based on the same legal theories. Takeda v. Turbodyne Technologies,, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1137 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Also, "[u]nder [Rule 23's] permissive standards, representative claims are `typical' if they are reasonably co-extensive with those' of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical." Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, Connecticut Retirement's claims are substantially identical with those of the absent class members. Connecticut Retirement claims that it was financially harmed by Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions in violation of federal securities laws. Additionally, Connecticut Retirement satisfies the adequacy of representation requirement of FRCP 23. Connecticut Retirement's chosen counsel has considerable experience in the prosecution of class actions and federal securities law claims. (Hart Dec., Ex. D). Connecticut Retirement's interests are aligned with the other class members because it seeks to recover funds for purchases of Amgen stock during the Class Period. Connecticut Retirement has also signed a sworn statement affirming its willingness to serve as, and to assume responsibilities of, class representative. (Hart Dec., Ex. A). 3. Step 3 - Responses by Other Plaintiffs CV-90 ( 06/04) Page 7 of 9

8 Case 207-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31 /2007 Page 8 of 9 'Case` No. CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v. Amgen, Inc et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v Sharer, et al CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v. Amgen et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v. Amgen et al. CentraIDennsylvama andregiona1health&waifare Fundv Am6 ' CV PSG (PLAx): Public Employees Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc et al. (: a Date ' July 31, ,,Title, : ' - Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. ' wr F nt Of the seven plaintiffs vying for appointment as lead plaintiff, all except the Jaffe Movants have filed responses to the competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff. All the responding plaintiffs agree that Connecticut Retirement is the presumptive lead plaintiff as it appears to have the largest financial interest in the litigation. Furthermore, a review of the competing plaintiffs' claimed losses reveals that their losses are lower than Connecticut Retirement's, "the only basis on which a court may compare plaintiffs competing to serve as lead." Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732. In comparison to Connecticut Retirement's reported losses of $17, 361,296 under the LIFO method, or $21,451,122 under the FIFO method, the Jaffe Movants assert losses of approximately $25,000 resulting from the purchase of 1,700 shares of Amgen stock during the Class Period. (Connecticut Retirement's Supp. Motion, p. 5, Table). Maine Retirement asserts losses of $865,774 under the LIFO method, and $2,133,591 under the FIFO method. (1d.). Colorado Retirement asserts losses off approximately $7 million5 (Colorado Retirement's Motion, p. 6:17-18), AXA asserts losses of $8,579,415, and Kentucky Retirement asserts losses of approximately $10.3 million under the LIFO method, and $12.03 million under the FIFO method. (Connecticut Retirement's Supp. Motion, p. 5, Table). Because not one plaintiff vying for lead plaintiff has rebutted Connecticut Retirement's presumptive status as lead plaintiff, the Court appoints Connecticut Retirement as lead plaintiff, and its attorneys from the firm Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP as lead counsel. 'Colorado Retirement bases its aggregate losses on a longer class period (by nearly two years) - March 10, 2003 through May 10, than that defined by Kairalla. (See Elden v. Amgen,, CV PSG (PLAx)). However, even considering this longer class period, Colorado Retirement's asserted losses are still lower than Connecticut Retirement's. CV-90 (06104) Page 8

9 Case x:07-cv PSG-PLA Document 82 Filed 07/31 /2007 Page 9 of 9 Case`.R ' CV PSG (PLAx): Kairalla v. Amgen, et at `Daie^' July 31, 2007 No. CV PSG (PLAx): Mendell v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Jaffe v. Amgen, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Durgin v Sharer, et al. CV PSG (PLAx): Elden v. Amgen et al CV PSG (PLAx): Rosenfield v. Amgen et al. Inc Colorado v. Amgen et al. :Title IV. Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders the following: The Court CONSOLIDATES the related cases CV , CV , CV , CV , CV , CV and CV with Kairalla v. Amgen, et al. CV The related cases are hereby closed, and all subsequent papers, pleadings and motions shall be filed under the low numbered case, Kairalla v. Amgen, et al., CV PSG (PLAx). 2. The Court GRANTS Connecticut' Retirement's Motion for Consolidation and for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court APPOINTS Connecticut Retirement as lead plaintiff, and its attorneys from the firm Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP as lead counsel. 3. The Court DENIES (1) the Jaffe Movants' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, (2) r the International Union's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, (3)'Maine Retirement's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, (4) Colorado Retirement's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, (5) 'AXA's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and (6), Kentucky Retirement's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. 4. Connecticut Retirement shall file a CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT no later than sixty (60) days from the date if this order, or by October Defendants ' s response is due sixty (60) days thereafter, or no later than November IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) Page 9 of 9