Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) responds to media inquiries regarding the substitution of a Class Representative in the above-referenced litigation. There appears to be some confusion regarding the issues related to the Class Representatives in this case.
When the Class was certified, the plaintiffs were within the definition of the Class. The Court’s 2011 Order certifying the Class was premised on information provided under oath by Apple’s representative, who identified Apple iPod models affected by the changes in Updates 7.0 and 7.4. Nearly two years later, in 2013, it was determined Apple’s representation had been mistaken. Apple then provided a new sworn statement taking certain iPods out of the affected model listing. The prior Class Representatives had purchased models covered by the certified Class definition. These Class Representatives were properly before the Court.
Ms. Marianna Rosen, who had purchased many iPods for herself and her family, bought a model within the certified Class definition. She also bought other models of iPods that were in the new affected model listing Apple provided, but the Court determined that purchase of the iPods on a credit card with her name on it and that of her husband’s firm raised questions about whether she was a direct purchaser. Following a long line of cases, including Supreme Court precedent, the Court found that upon certification, the Class acquired a legal status separate from the interest asserted by the Class Representative, thus allowing another member of the Class to step forward and not face dismissal after determining Ms Rosen could not be the Class Representative. Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
Following the issues related to the purchase by Ms. Rosen, plaintiffs’ counsel received an outpouring of calls and emails from Class members seeking to help prosecute the case. One of those people was Ms. Barbara Bennett. After vetting Ms. Bennett, plaintiffs’ counsel determined that she had purchased an affected iPod directly from Apple during the Class Period and that she would be an active and engaged representative. On December 15, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to substitute in the Massachusetts resident, finding that Ms. Bennett was an adequate representative of the Class. She traveled cross country, twice, in the space of days to give testimony and lend her voice to the litigation, according to Class counsel Patrick Coughlin.
Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
Contacts:
Patrick Coughlin
800-449-4900
