The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, Chief Judge:
This case involves several federal securities class actions brought by Central European Distribution Corporation ("CEDC") shareholders under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order ("August 22, 2012 Order") [Docket Item 61]*fn1 in Civ. No. 11-6247, In re Central European Distribution Corp. Securities Litigation ("CEDC I"). The August 22, 2012 Order appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel, consolidated two cases, and ordered that any other cases filed in or transferred into this district arising out of the same subject matter shall be consolidated with this action. In September of 2012, two cases, Grodko v. CEDC ("Grodko action") and Puerto Rico System of Annuities and Pensions for Teachers v. CEDC ("Puerto Rico action"), were transferred into this district from the Southern District of New York and consolidated with CEDC I pursuant to the August 22, 2012 Order. Parties from the transferred cases filed two motions either objecting to or seeking relief from the August 22, 2012 Order:
(1) Plaintiff Jeffrey Grodko and lead plaintiff movant Harry Nelis' First Motion For Relief From This Court's August 22, 2012 Order ("Motion for Relief") [Docket Item 72], which argues that CEDC I and the Grodko action are distinct and should not be consolidated, and (2) the Motion Of Named Plaintiff Puerto Rico System Of Annuities And Pensions For Teachers' Objection To The August 22, 2012 Opinion And Order ("Puerto Rico's Objection") [Docket Item 77], which objects to the lead plaintiff appointment in CEDC I.*fn2
For the reasons explained herein, the Court will grant the Motion for Relief and allow the Grodko action to proceed separately from CEDC I. The reasons for de-consolidating the Grodko action apply to the Puerto Rico System action, which will also be de-consolidated. But the three actions will be coordinated for discovery and case management purposes. Because the Court will de-consolidate the Puerto Rico action from CEDC I, the Court will dismiss Puerto Rico's objection as moot.
This section outlines the CEDC I, Grodko, and Puerto Rico actions' procedural history and the relevant factual background.
A. Procedural History - CEDC I
Plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund commenced Civ. No. 11-6247 in the District of New Jersey by filing a Complaint against the Central European Distribution Corporation ("CEDC"), Christopher Biedermann, and William Carey on October 24, 2011.*fn3 Three weeks later, on November 15, 2011, Plaintiff Tim Schuler commenced Civ. No. 11-7085 in the District of New Jersey by filing a Complaint against the same Defendants. The two complaints made similar factual and legal allegations.
On June 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Karen Williams issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") [Docket Item 49] addressing Motions To Appoint Lead Plaintiff, Appoint Counsel, And Consolidate Related Actions filed by the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association ("Arkansas & Fresno") [Docket Item 4]; and Motions To Consolidate Cases, Appoint Lead Plaintiff, And Appoint Counsel filed by the Prosperity Group [Docket Item 9].
The R & R recommended that (1) the Court should consolidate Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Central European Distribution Corp., Civ. No. 11-6247, and Schuler v. Central European Distribution Corp., Civ. No. 11-7085; (2) Arkansas & Fresno's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff should be granted, and the Prosperity Group's competing Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff should be denied; and (3) Arkansas & Fresno's selection of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel and Barrack Rodos & Bacine as liaison counsel should be approved.
On August 22, 2012, this Court issued an Opinion and Order [Docket Items 60 & 61] adopting the R & R. The August 22, 2012 Order consolidated Civ. Nos. 11-6247 and 11-7085, appointed Arkansas & Fresno as lead plaintiff for the consolidated action, and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of Cohen, Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC to serve as lead counsel and Barrack, Rodos, & Bacine to serve as liaison counsel. The August 22, 2012 Order also ordered that each new case that arises out of the subject matter of this Consolidated Action that is filed in or transferred to this Court shall be consolidated with this Consolidated Action. This Order shall apply thereto, unless a party objecting to this Order or any provision of this Order shall, within ten (10) days after the date upon which a copy of this Order is served on counsel for such party, file an application for relief from this Order or any provision herein and this Court deems it appropriate to grant such application.
August 22, 2012 Order at 3. This term, which ordered automatic consolidation of transferred cases subject to timely objection, gave rise to the motions at issue in this Opinion.
B. Procedural History - Cases Transferred From Southern District of New York On June 8, 2012, Plaintiff Jeffrey Grodko commenced Civ. No. 12-4512 in the Southern District of New York ("Grodko action") by filing a complaint against CEDC, Carey, and Biedermann. On August 7, 2012, Plaintiff Puerto Rico System of Annuities and Pensions for Teachers ("Puerto Rico") commenced Civ. No. 12-6046 in the Southern District of New York ("Puerto Rico action") by filing a complaint against Defendants CEDC, Biedermann, and Carey.
On July 20, 2012, CEDC filed a Motion to Transfer Venue in the Grodko Action from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. [Civ. No. 12-5530, Docket Item 10.] On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff Grodko filed Opposition to the Motion to Transfer Venue. [Civ. No. 12-5530, Docket Item 14.] On August 28, 2012, however, Grodko and Harry Nelis, who had moved to become lead plaintiff in the Grodko action, filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to CEDC's Motion to Transfer Venue. [Civ. No. 12-5530, Docket Item 35.] In their Notice of Non-Opposition, Grodko and Nelis explained that this Court's Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel in the August 22, 2012 Order "militate[d] in favor of th[eir] Action being prosecuted in the District of New Jersey, for purposes of coordination with the New Jersey Action." (Non-Opposition at 1.) In addition, Grodko and Nelis explained that they were persuaded by Arkansas & Fresno's representation that they did not intend to consolidate the Grodko action with CEDC I. (Non-Opposition at 1.)
Puerto Rico's counsel then filed a letter with the Southern District of New York judge, noting that the Grodko action was going to be transferred and requesting transfer of the Puerto Rico action to serve judicial economy. [Civ. No. 12-5531, Docket Item 9].
On September 5, 2012 the Grodko action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, becoming Civil Action No. 12-5530 in this District. The Puerto Rico action was also transferred into this District, becoming Civ. No. 12-5531.
Once the Grodko and Puerto Rico actions arrived in the District of New Jersey, pursuant to the August 22, 2012 Order, the two actions were deemed consolidated with CEDC I, classified as member cases, and terminated as separate cases.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Grodko and lead plaintiff movant Harry Nelis then filed a Motion for Relief from the Court's August 22, 2012 Order [Docket Item 72], arguing that the Grodko action and CEDC I were factually distinct and consolidation was unwarranted. Defendant CEDC filed Opposition to the Motion for Relief [Docket Item 92], and Grodko and Nelis filed a Reply [Docket Item 99]. Plaintiff Puerto Rico also filed an Objection to the August 22, 2012 Opinion and Order [Docket Item 77], objecting to Arkansas & Fresno' lead plaintiff appointment. Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas & Fresno filed Opposition to Puerto Rico's Objection [Docket Item 89], and Puerto Rico filed a Reply [Docket Item 100].
C. Factual Background - CEDC I
CEDC I is a federal securities action brought on behalf of CEDC shareholders pursuing remedies under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. CEDC I involves shareholders who purchased CEDC common stock between August 5, 2010 and February 28, 2011 ("CEDC I class period"). (Civ. No. 11-6247, Compl. ¶ 1.) The action alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding CEDC's vodka business that deceived the public, artificially inflated CEDC securities' prices, and caused the public to purchase the stock at artificially inflated prices. (Id. ¶ 16.) Defendants allegedly failed to disclose double digit declines in CEDC's vodka portfolio, growing loss of vodka market share, adverse effects from a new vodka product launch, and an excise tax issue impacting vodka production in Russia. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 29, 31.) These problems culminated in March of 2011 when CEDC took a $131 million non-cash impairment charge because the value of Polish vodka brand trademarks had deteriorated. (Id. ¶ 32.)
D. Factual Background - Grodko action
The Grodko action is also a federal securities action against Defendants CEDC, Biedermann, and Carey brought under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It involves shareholders who purchased any CEDC securities, not only CEDC common stock, between March 1, 2010 and June 4, 2012. (Civ. No. 12-5530, Compl. ¶ 1.) This class period begins earlier, ends later and, essentially, includes the entire CEDC I class period, which is August 5, 2010 to February 28, 2011. The Grodko action involves CEDC's failure to account for retroactive trade rebates provided to customers of its main operating subsidiary in Russia, causing a $30-40 million reduction in the CEDC's previously-reported consolidated net sales, operating profit, and accounts receivable for the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011. (Id. ¶ 3.)
E. Factual Background - Puerto Rico Action
The Puerto Rico action is similar to the Grodko action. The class period, March 1, 2010 to June 4, 2012, is the same. (Civ. No. 12-5531, Compl. ¶ 1.) The proposed class, all persons who purchased CEDC securities during the class period, is the same. (Id. ¶ 1.) Like the Grodko action and unlike CEDC I, the Puerto Rico action is not limited to purchasers of CEDC common stock. In addition, like Grodko, this action involves CEDC's alleged failure to ...