Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Parkinson

July 5, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Name of Assigned Judge Edmond E. Chang Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge



The Court appoints Westmoreland as lead plaintiff and Scott䧊 as lead counsel. The four actions are consolidated into the lowest-number case, 10 C 06514. The Clerk shall administratively terminate the other three case numbers (10 C 07131, 10 C 07317, and 11 C 00151) in order to prevent overlapping filings; all filings in those cases shall be treated as if they had been filed in 10 C 06514. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint on or before August 17, 2011. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead on or before September 19, 2011. Status hearing is set for September 21, 2011.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.


In October 2010, Plaintiffs North Miami Beach General Employees Retirement Fund and Julie Weintraub filed a derivative action against the directors of Baxter International and one of its officers. R. 1. The complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing, among other things, to correct the federal-law violations arising from Baxter's manufacturing and distribution of two infusion pumps. Id. ¶¶ 55-76. Three other derivative actions concerning the same two pumps were filed in this District. Salyers v. Boomer et al., 10 C 07131; LAMPERS v. Parkinson et al., 10 C 07317; Westmoreland County Employee Retirement System v. Baxter International, 11 C 00151. In light of the relatedness of the actions, the Court granted the motions to reassign. R. 59.

Before the Court are two competing applications to be named lead plaintiff (and lead counsel). R. 48, 64. Although either set of plaintiffs and counsel would likely more than adequately represent the shareholders' interests, on balance the Court concludes that Westmoreland should be the lead plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court will consolidate all four actions into the lowest-numbered case and order the filing of a consolidated amended complaint.


Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(a) provides that a "derivative action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of shareholders . . . who are similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation . . . ." Here, there is no question that the competing plaintiffs will "fairly and adequately" represent the shareholders' interests. The question instead is which lead plaintiff (and lead counsel) will best represent those interests. (Although this case is not governed by the PSLRA's appointment procedure, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3), the Court has the authority to appoint a lead plaintiff and counsel in a derivative action in order to create an efficient case-management structure.)

Plaintiffs agree that the Court should decide the issue based on the sensible factors set forth in Dollens v. Zionts, 2001 WL 1543524, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2001). Those factors are (a) the plaintiff's financial interest; (b) the preference for institutional investors to lead a lawsuit for shareholders; (c) the quality of the pleadings; (d) the vigor with which the plaintiff has pursued the suit; and (e) the plaintiff's arrangement on the payment of attorney's fees.

Financial Interest. The plaintiff with the largest financial interest at stake is Westmoreland. Westmoreland owns some 15,900 shares of Baxter stock, more than the combined total of North Miami (4800 shares) and LAMPERS (6800 shares). Although North Miami and LAMPERS each have a substantial financial incentive to vigorously litigate the case, this factor does tip in Westmoreland's favor, particularly where Westmoreland owns more than double the number of shares that North Miami and LAMPERS own individually.

Institutional Investor. The preference for an institutional investor is a wash because the competing plaintiffs are all institutional investors.

Quality of the Pleadings. Both complaints are of high quality: they contain many detailed factual allegations (prolixity and detail are not always a virtue in a complaint, but given the nature of the case, it was wise to include details) covering a substantial time period. Westmoreland's complaint does include allegations based on non-public information that Westmoreland obtained from Baxter pursuant to its booksand-records inspection rights under 8 Del. Code § 220. Those allegations were made in an effort to stave off the inevitable demand-futility ...

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.