Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Corwin v. Viewray, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

December 19, 2019

CORT CORWIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
VIEWRAY, INC., SCOTT DRAKE, AJAY BANSAL, and JAMES F. DEMPSEY, Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS.12, 14]

          JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

         Plaintiff Cort Corwin has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants alleging securities fraud. Corwin and putative class members Plymouth County Retirement Association (Plymouth) and David Bedell both separately ask for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plymouth County Retirement Association's motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have its attorneys appointed lead counsel. The Court DENIES Bedell's motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have his attorneys appointed lead counsel.

         I. Background

         On September 13, 2019 Plaintiff Corwin sued Defendants ViewRay, Inc., Scott Drake, Ajay Bansal, and James Dempsey.[1] With his complaint, Corwin alleges that, beginning in March 2019, Defendants “disseminated or approved . . . false or misleading statements” that artificially inflated the prices for ViewRay common stock.[2] Corwin states that the stock prices later fell significantly in August 2019 when ViewRay announced quarterly results that were different from Defendants' earlier statements.[3] Corwin suggests that there is a class of investors who were damaged when they purchased ViewRay stock at artificially high prices between March 15, 2019, and August 8, 2019 (the class period).[4]

         Corwin asks the Court to choose him as lead plaintiff.[5] On September 13, Corwin filed a public notice of the class action in BusinessWire.[6]

         Thereafter other investors in the putative class filed similar motions asking to be appointed lead plaintiff.[7] On November 8, 2019 Plymouth filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and to have the Court appoint their attorneys, Scott䧊, as lead counsel.[8]On November 12, 2019, Bedell filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and to have the court appoint Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, as lead counsel.[9]

         II. Standard

         The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) controls private securities-related class actions.[10] The PSLRA requires the plaintiff to give public notice of the proposed class action that includes notice to any member of the purported class of their ability to serve as lead plaintiff.[11] The PSLRA instructs courts to “consider any motion made by a purported class member in response to the notice, . . . and [] 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 . . . .”[12]

         To identify the “most adequate plaintiff, ” section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the PSLRA provides a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is:

         the person or group of persons that---

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i);
(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.[13]

         The PSLRA allows a member of the purported class to rebut the presumption that the statutorily favored representative is the most adequate plaintiff if that member provides proof that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.