Defendants must be seeing stars in the Veeco securities class action. Seriously, it’s bad enough losing the motion to dismiss, but losing class certification in the same Order? Say it ain’t so. But it is so, and this time it’s Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) on the Bench. Her opinion covers a lot of ground, and Defendants aren’t without certain victories (like shaving the class period from 15 to 9 months), but let’s face it, you know you’re in trouble when the Judge says that “Plaintiffs' extensive allegations of fraud -- whether or not sufficient to ultimately establish defendants' liability -- undoubtedly satisfy Rule 9(b)'s and the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements.”
And following a trend the Nugget has long reported, Judge McMahon provided what arguably is the best description yet of just how non-complicated the whole Dura loss causation thing really is, holding that “plaintiffs allege that they were harmed when Veeco's stock plummeted as a result of defendants' disclosure of prior misrepresentations and material omissions relating to the company's performance and earnings. The complaint thus contains the very allegations regarding share price decrease and public exposure to the truth the Supreme Court found lacking in the Dura complaint.”
That's right all you Dura exaggerators (you know who you are), enough to get past motions to dismiss and class certification objections.
You can read In re Veeco, issued March 21, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13226.
Nugget: “The court has no reason to believe that [the class representative is inadequate based on ignorance], and finds it odd that defendants would set themselves up as champions of the class interests by making such an argument.”