In Re Razorfish, Inc. Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting proposed co-lead plaintiff appointment because “there is nothing to suggest that they will collectively ride herd on counsel anywhere as well as could a single sophisticated entity”
• rejecting proposed group because it “is simply an artifice cobbled together by cooperating counsel for the obvious purpose of creating a large enough grouping of investors to qualify as ‘lead plaintiff’”
• “To allow an aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs defeats the purpose of choosing a lead plaintiff.” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he context and structure of the PSLRA evince an intent that a ‘group’ consist of more than a mere assemblage of unrelated persons who share nothing in common other than the twin fortuities that (1
• court refused to appoint “artifice” of four unrelated institutional and individual investors “cobbled together by cooperating counsel for the obvious purpose of creating a large enough grouping of investors to qualify as ‘lead plaintiff ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).