OK, let’s be honest, how often do you hear a federal judge admit a mistake? Not just begrudgingly, but fully admit it, as in I “mistakenly misconstrued,” I “erred,” no seriously, I “erroneously determined” an issue. What’s the issue you ask? Remember back on April, 2006 when the Nugget reported that the City of Philadelphia Pension Board had been appointed Lead Plaintiff in the Dana securities class action based on LIFO? Well, seems one of the losing movant groups, the Pension Trust Fund Group (PTFG), wasn’t very satisfied with that result. But instead of whining about it, they moved to reconsider, arguing that “the City's calculations separated out the LIFO losses of the PTFG's individual member groups, effectively understating those figures.”
To which Judge James G. Carr (N.D. Ohio) concluded “There is no question that characterization is accurate.” You see, as Judge Carr explained, “the City's chart listed line items for: 1) the Plumber & Pipefitters National Pension Fund; 2) the SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust; and 3) West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund. These entities are all part of the PTFG, not individual applicants for lead plaintiff status. Consequently, I should have considered their losses in the aggregate, and therefore erred in interpreting the City's chart the way I did. Accordingly, the PTFG does have greater LIFO losses than the City,” and “PTFG is appointed lead plaintiff.”
You can read Frank v. Dana, issued May 24, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33021.
Nugget: “Relying on the City's representation, I erroneously determined that party had the largest LIFO losses.”