Saxon v. Oshkosh Corporation et al, No. 2:2008cv00862 - Document 67 (E.D. Wis. 2009)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge William C Griesbach on February 11, 2009. The motions 9 13 16 20 to consolidate are GRANTED, and the cases captioned above are hereby consolidated. The motion of the Massachusetts Public Pension Funds to be appointed lead plaintiff is GRANTED, and its choice of counsel is approved. All other motions are DENIED. The clerk is to put these cases on for a telephonic scheduling conference. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO. 25 PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiff, v. Case Nos. 08-C-797, 08-C-862, 08-C-870 OSHKOSH CORP. and ROBERT BOHN, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER The above-captioned securities fraud cases were recently transferred to this Court. Pending are motions to consolidate the three actions as well as motions to appoint lead plaintiffs and counsel. All parties seem to be in agreement that consolidation is appropriate, and it is. All of the actions involve allegations that Oshkosh Corp. was making confident predictions to the marketplace when in fact it knew things were going downhill. The complaints allege similar class periods. Accordingly, the motions to consolidate will be granted. Several plaintiffs have also moved to be appointed lead plaintiff. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ( PSLRA ) provides a timeline of actions that plaintiffs must take, and the parties are in agreement that these actions were taken at the appropriate times. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(a)(3)(A). Appointment of the lead plaintiff is to be made expeditiously, and when actions are consolidated appointment is to be made as soon as practicable. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). The principal criterion for appointment of the lead plaintiff involves the rebuttable presumption that the lead plaintiff should be the movant with the largest financial interest in the case. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb). This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown, inter alia, that the party with the largest financial interest cannot adequately protect the interests of the class. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa). The party with the largest financial interest in this case is the Massachusetts Public Pension Funds ( MPPF ), whose loss attributed to the alleged fraud totals more than $3 million. In their responses, the other parties who had originally sought lead plaintiff status have conceded that Massachusetts Public Pension Funds should be appointed lead plaintiff. Because MPPF meets the criteria of the PSLRA, and because there is no effort to rebut the presumption that MPPF is the appropriate lead plaintiff, its motion will be granted. Similarly, its choice of counsel is also approved, as it appears that firm has significant experience in securities litigation. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (the lead plaintiff shall, subject to Court approval, select and retain counsel to represent the Class. ) Accordingly, the motions to consolidate are GRANTED, and the cases captioned above are hereby consolidated. The motion of the Massachusetts Public Pension Funds to be appointed lead plaintiff is GRANTED, and its choice of counsel is approved. All other motions are DENIED. The clerk is to put these cases on for a telephonic scheduling conference. SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2009. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
