Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03395/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03395-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court declines to consider the as-yet-unfiled application of the unidentified

institutional investor whose counsel sent correspondence to chambers on January 12, 2006.

Case No. C 05-3395 JF

ORDER APPOINTING MERCURY PENSION FUND GROUP AS LEAD PLAINTIFF ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 5/5/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE

SUPPORTING FUND, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCURY INTERACTIVE CORPORATION, et

al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. C 05-3395 JF

ORDER APPOINTING MERCURY

PENSION FUND GROUP AS LEAD

PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING

CHOICE OF LEAD COUNSEL

Before the Court are the competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff of Mercury

Pension Fund Group (“Mercury Group”) and the Public Employees’ Retirement System of

Mississippi (“Mississippi PERS”).1 The Court has considered the briefing of the parties and the

oral argument presented at the hearing on January 13, 2006. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court will appoint Mercury Group as the lead plaintiff.

The first of the several related securities fraud actions comprising the Mercury litigation

was filed on August 19, 2005. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Case 5:05-cv-03395-JF Document 67 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 05-3395 JF

ORDER APPOINTING MERCURY PENSION FUND GROUP AS LEAD PLAINTIFF ETC.

(JFLC2)

(“Reform Act”), Pub. L. No. 104-67 (1995), the first plaintiff or group of plaintiffs to file a

securities fraud action must publish a notice advising members of the purported class of the

pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, the purported class period and the fact that

any class member may move to serve as lead plaintiff within sixty days after publication of the

notice. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice in the instant case was published on August

21, 2005. Only one application for lead plaintiff was made within sixty days, that of Mercury

Group, which filed its application on the sixtieth day, October 20, 2005. Mississippi PERS filed

a motion to intervene and a proposed securities fraud complaint approximately six weeks later,

on November 28, 2005. The Court ordered the complaint filed and consolidated with the other

actions, and construed Mississippi PERS’ motion to intervene as a motion for lead plaintiff.

There is no controlling authority on the question of whether the sixty-day period for

seeking appointment as lead plaintiff may be waived or excused. Mercury Group cites a number

of district court cases holding that the sixty-day period must be strictly applied. See, e.g., Ferrari

v. Gisch, 225 F.R.D. 599, 603-04 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Mississippi PERS cites other district court

cases holding that failure to comply with the sixty-day period may be excused upon a showing of

good cause. See, e.g., Chill v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 181 F.R.D. 398, 404 (D. Minn. 1998). 

This Court need not decide whether the sixty-day period must be strictly applied, because it

concludes that even if the sixty-day period may be excused upon a showing of good cause,

Mississippi PERS has not demonstrated good cause for its late filing in the instant case.

Mississippi PERS argues persuasively that because the original complaint filed on August

19, 2005 alleged a stock drop of only .7%, Mississippi PERS did not have sufficient notice of the

significance of this securities fraud action and did not have sufficient incentive to seek

appointment as lead plaintiff. However, Mississippi PERS concedes that by October 4, 2005, the

company had issued a press release disclosing a formal investigation by the Securities and

Exchange Commission and that there had been a significant stock drop. At that time, Mississippi

PERS had sixteen days within which to throw its hat into the ring as lead plaintiff. All

Mississippi PERS would have had to do to protect its rights at that point was to file a bare-bones

motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. Mississippi PERS has not explained adequately why it

Case 5:05-cv-03395-JF Document 67 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-3395 JF

ORDER APPOINTING MERCURY PENSION FUND GROUP AS LEAD PLAINTIFF ETC.

(JFLC2)

could not have filed such a motion, or why it did not do so. Accordingly, the Court concludes

that Mississippi PERS has failed to demonstrate good cause for excusing its failure to comply

with the sixty-day requirement.

Mercury Group thus is the only timely applicant for lead plaintiff. Based upon the record

before it, the Court is satisfied that Mercury Group is capable of serving as lead plaintiff and that

Mercury Group’s counsel, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff

LLP, is well able to serve as lead counsel.

ORDER

The Court appoints Mercury Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiff in this action, and

appoints as co-lead counsel the law firms of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Labaton

Sucharow & Rudoff LLP.

DATED: 5/5/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03395-JF Document 67 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 05-3395 JF

ORDER APPOINTING MERCURY PENSION FUND GROUP AS LEAD PLAINTIFF ETC.

(JFLC2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Eric J. Belfi ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

Peter A. Binkow pbinkow@glancylaw.com, info@glancylaw.com

Aaron H. Darsky adarsky@schubert-reed.com,

Kirk Andrew Dublin kdublin@jonesday.com, tmdanowski@jonesday.com;

jcline@jonesday.com; emilstein@jonesday.com

Jeffrey S. Facter jfacter@shearman.com, cflood@shearman.com; rcheatham@shearman.com

Michael M. Goldberg info@glancylaw.com

Willem F. Jonckheer wjonckheer@schubert-reed.com

Nicole Acton Jones nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com, harriette.louie@hellerehrman.com

David R. Scott drscott@scott-scott.com

Arthur L. Shingler , III ashingler@scott-scott.com, ssawyer@scott-scott.com

Case 5:05-cv-03395-JF Document 67 Filed 05/05/06 Page 4 of 4