You're viewing Docket Item 45 from the case Doral Bank Puerto Rico v. Washington Mutual Asset Acceptance Corporation et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11



THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DORAL BANK PUERTO RICO, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL ASSET
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.








)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:09-cv-01557-MJP

CLASS ACTION

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA
CARPENTERS PENSION FUND’S
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE
COMPETING MOTION

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
March 18, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENT



12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)





McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467

1

2

3


I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

4

II.

ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A.

Doral Bank Should Not Be Appointed as Lead Plaintiff.........................................4

1.

2.

Doral Bank Does Not Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23 and Has
Not Triggered the PSLRA’s “Most Adequate Plaintiff”
Presumption .................................................................................................4

Doral Bank Suffers from Debilitating Conflicts of Interest Which
Preclude Its Appointment ............................................................................7

B.

Greater Pennsylvania Is the “Most Adequate Plaintiff” and Should Be
Appointed Lead Plaintiff..........................................................................................8

11

III.

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................9




12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- i -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

Class member and proposed lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund

2

(“Movant” or “Greater Pennsylvania”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in further

3

support of its motion for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation

4

Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) in the above-referenced action, and in opposition to the competing

5

motion submitted by Doral Bank Puerto Rico (“Doral Bank”).

I.

INTRODUCTION

Presently pending before this Court are two motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and

approval of lead plaintiff’s selection of counsel. In addition to Greater Pennsylvania’s motion, Doral

Bank has filed a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff.1

Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Court is instructed to appoint as lead plaintiff the person or

persons with the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation that otherwise satisfy the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). The PSLRA also requires the Court

to appoint only those applicants that can fairly and adequately represent the class and are not subject

to unique defenses. 15 U.S.C. §77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir.

2002). Specifically, the PSLRA provides that, in determining the “most adequate plaintiff”:

[T]he court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any private
action arising under this chapter is the person or group of persons that –

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a
notice . . .;



1
Doral Bank is the principle banking entity of Doral Financial Corporation (“Doral Financial”) (collectively,
with Doral Bank, “Doral”). Through Doral Bank and Doral Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary Doral Mortgage, Doral
Financial accepts deposits from the general public and institutions, obtains borrowings, originates and invests in loans
(primarily residential real estate mortgage loans), invests in mortgage-backed securities as well as in other investment
securities, and offers traditional banking services. Approximately 93% of Doral Bank’s loan portfolio is secured by real
estate and, like Washington Mutual, Doral Bank’s residential mortgage loans, which are supplemented by wholesale loan
purchasers from third parties, are securitized and sold on the secondary market. See Declaration of Brian O. O’Mara in
Support of Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund’s Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Its Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and in Opposition to the Competing Motion (“O’Mara Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Doral Fin. Corp.
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, Part I) at 3-4.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 1 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

2

3

4

(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the class; and

(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

15 U.S.C. 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii).2 See Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of

5

Appointment of Doral Bank Puerto Rico as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Its Selection of Lead

6

Counsel (“Doral Mem.”) (Docket #27) at 2 (recognizing that before being appointed as lead plaintiff,

7

movant must “satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8

23”).

9

If the Court were to solely consider the movants’ claimed “financial interest,” Doral Bank

10

would appear well-positioned to argue it should be presumed to be the “most adequate plaintiff.”

11

However, the PSLRA “does not permit courts simply to ‘presume’ that the movant with ‘the largest

12

financial interest in the relief sought by the class’ satisfies the typicality and adequacy

13

requirements.” In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 264 (3d Cir. 2001). “[A] movant’s

14

financial interest is just a beginning point, and courts acknowledge that they must also consider the

15

movant’s ability and willingness to adequately represent the class.” In re Cable & Wireless, PLC,

16

Sec. Litig., 217 F.R.D. 372, 377 (E.D. Va. 2003); see In re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. & ERISA Litig.,

17

219 F.R.D. 343 (D. Md. 2003) (reasoning that lead plaintiff will be determined on factors other than

18

financial interest).

19

Here, Doral Bank fails to satisfy Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy requirements and should

20

not be appointed lead plaintiff. Not only is Doral Bank an “insider” in the subprime mortgage and

21

securitization markets (as it was in 2007 when the WaMu Certificates were issued, see, e.g., Docket

22

#18, ¶1), but Doral itself has been the target of numerous investigations centered on its own

23

improper subprime mortgage and accounting practices which are similar to those at issue here.

24

25

26

508110_1



2

Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and citations are omitted.

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 2 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

Infra, §II.A.1. In fact, Doral’s treasurer, Mario S. Levis, was indicted on securities fraud and wire

2

fraud charges relating to his role in allegedly manipulating the Company’s accounting related to

3

Doral’s own mortgage pass-through securities. Id. Compounding these problems and highlighting

4

Doral Bank’s inability to “otherwise satisfy[y] the requirement of Rule 23,” several Doral senior

5

insiders, including former Doral director Frank W. Baier and current Doral treasurer Marangal I.

6

Domingo, are former Washington Mutual executives and potential fact witnesses in this case.3 Infra,

7

§II.A.2. At a minimum, these defects and conflicts render Doral Bank “subject to” unique defenses

8

which may prove prejudicial to the class and would most assuredly be exploited by capable defense

9

counsel to the detriment of the class if Doral was appointed lead plaintiff. See In re Bally Total

10

Fitness Sec. Litig., No. 04 C 3530, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6243, at *19 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2005)

11

(“the PSLRA . . . provides that we ask simply whether [a movant] is likely to be ‘subject to’ [unique

12

defenses] . . . [not that] the defense is likely to succeed”).

13

By contrast, Greater Pennsylvania – a pension fund overseen by a board of trustees

14

experienced in PSLRA actions – has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class of

15

any movant which “otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.” 15 U.S.C. §77z-

16

1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). And, unlike Doral, Greater Pennsylvania has not been linked to misconduct

17

similar to that which the class alleges Washington Mutual engaged. Nor will Greater Pennsylvania

18

burden the class with a representative which is subject to unique defenses. In the end, Greater

19

Pennsylvania is the most adequate plaintiff and should be appointed Lead Plaintiff. Doral Bank’s

20

motion should be denied.

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1



3
As a former Washington Mutual insider, Mr. Baier is likely to have had access to insider information as well as
confidential and/or proprietary information. See In re Michaels Stores, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 3:03-CV-0246-M, slip. op at
4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2003) (finding that the movant with the largest financial interest – a former employee who had
access to defendant’s non-public information – was subject to unique defenses and therefore not appropriately appointed
to represent the class). O’Mara Decl., Ex. 2.

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 3 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



II.

ARGUMENT

The PSLRA directs courts to appoint as lead plaintiff the movant which is “most capable of

adequately representing the interests of class members.” 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Courts have

an “‘obligation to appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class

who are “most capable of representing the interests of the class members.”’” Pirelli Armstrong Tire

Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits v. LaBranche & Co., 229 F.R.D. 395, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). See

Vincelli v. Nat’l Home Health Care Corp., 112 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“the

PSLRA provides certain guidelines for identifying the plaintiff or plaintiffs who are the most

strongly aligned with the class of shareholders”). The “‘most capable’ plaintiff – and hence the lead

plaintiff – is the one who has the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the case,” but only “so

long as he meets the requirements of Rule 23.” Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 729; Cendant, 264 F.3d

201; 15 U.S.C. §77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). “If (for any reason) the court determines that the movant

with the largest losses cannot make a threshold showing of typicality or adequacy, then the court

should . . . disqualify that movant from serving as lead plaintiff.” Cendant, 264 F.3d at 267;

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. See, e.g., Baydale v. Am. Express Co., No. 09 Civ. 3016 (WHP) 2009

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71668 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (appointing pension fund with a financial interest

equal to just 5% of the loss suffered by the largest movant where court found that largest movant

was subject to unique defenses).

A.

Doral Bank Should Not Be Appointed as Lead Plaintiff

1.

Doral Bank Does Not Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23 and
Has Not Triggered the PSLRA’s “Most Adequate Plaintiff”
Presumption

While Doral may claim a larger financial interest in the relief sought by the class, it cannot be

appointed as a lead plaintiff because it does not satisfy Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy

requirements. Indeed, Doral Bank is subject to a variety of adequacy challenges as it has been

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 4 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

embroiled in a subprime mortgage scandal of its own which in turn resulted in federal investigations,

2

private shareholder actions and individual criminal indictments.

3

Doral was itself alleged to have engaged in mortgage-related abuses similar to what is

4

alleged here. See, e.g., In re Doral Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:05-md-01706, Docket #55

5

(S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2006) (amended securities fraud complaint for violations of the Securities

6

Exchange Act of 1934 based, in part, on Doral’s concealment of losses stemming from the sale of

7

more than $4 billion of fixed rate non-conforming mortgages);4 see also Declaration of Douglas C.

8

McDermott in Support of Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund’s Motion for Appointment

9

as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Selection of Counsel (“McDermott Decl.”) (Docket #30), Ex. C

10

(discussing FBI investigation of Doral for subprime mortgage fraud). According to the complaint in

11

the civil action against Doral, the Company was alleged to have engaged in a massive accounting

12

fraud related to its mortgage loan and securitization practices which caused it to overstate the

13

Company’s pre-tax income by more than $920.8 million and understate its debt by more than $3.3

14

billion. E.g., Doral, No. 1:05-md-01706, Docket #55, ¶3.

15

As a result of misconduct relating to the valuation of its mortgage-related securities and the

16

sale of mortgage loans to third-party financial institutions, Doral was forced to enter into consent

17

orders with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance

18

Corporation and the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico. See O’Mara Decl., Exs.

19

3-4. Moreover, Doral’s treasurer Mario S. Levis, a/k/a “Sammy Levis,” was indicted for securities

20

fraud and wire fraud for his role in Doral’s dissemination of false and misleading statements

21

concerning mortgage pass-through certificates. United States v. Levis, No. S1 08 Cr. 181 (TGP)

22

(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2010); see O’Mara Decl., Exs. 5-6. Mr. Levis’ criminal fraud trial is scheduled

23

24

25

26

508110_1



4

This civil action was ultimately settled.

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 5 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

to begin on March 22, 2010, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Thomas P. Griesa in the United

2

States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

3

While there is no bright line rule to determine whether a proposed lead plaintiff should be

4

subject to the type of adequacy challenges which preclude it from serving as a fiduciary for the class,

5

courts have found that movants subject to attack in prior deceptive conduct should not be appointed

6

lead plaintiff. See, e.g., In re Surebeam Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 03 CV 1721 JM (POR), 2003 U.S.

7

Dist. LEXIS 25022, at *21-*22 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2003) (refusing to appoint lead plaintiff movant

8

where representative of movant was the subject of numerous complaints to securities regulators);

9

Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs., 209 F.R.D. 499, 504-05 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (rejecting lead plaintiff

10

movant which received two public citations for violations of SEC and NASD rules because of

11

concerns about potential defenses and movant’s moral character); In re Network Assocs. Sec. Litig.,

12

76 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (declining to appoint an institution as lead plaintiff

13

because two of its affiliates were under investigation for fraud).

14

To be sure, the movant claiming the largest financial stake in the outcome of the case can be

15

appointed lead plaintiff, only “so long as he meets the requirements of Rule 23.” Cavanaugh, 306

16

F.3d at 729. District courts in the Ninth Circuit have addressed this very issue, including Judge

17

Jeffrey T. Miller, who in Surebeam noted that Sherwin Brown, a principle of lead plaintiff movant

18

Jamerica, had been “subject to over sixty complaints to securities regulators including

19

misrepresentation, unauthorized trading in client accounts, and use of unsuitable investments.” 2003

20

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25022, at *21. Recognizing that it is “unclear . . . whether these accusations

21

involve Surebeam securities or bear any relation to the present action,” the court still found “that

22

Jamerica is incapable of serving as lead plaintiff.” Id. The Surebeam court held that “[w]ithout

23

comment or consideration of Mr. Brown’s guilt or innocence as to the underlying charges, this court

24

finds that there is at least a potential that Jamerica will be subject to unique defenses and will not

25

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Id.

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 6 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

In Network Associates, Judge William Alsup evaluated the propriety of appointing as lead

2

plaintiff a movant who had been the subject of criminal fraud investigations. 76 F. Supp. 2d at 1029.

3

There, the court rejected the movant with the largest financial interest, finding that, even if evidence

4

of the movant’s misconduct were excluded at trial, the court was “unwilling to install an enterprise

5

under such a cloud in a position of trust and confidence.” Id.; see also LaBranche, 229 F.R.D. at

6

416 (“[H]onesty and trustworthiness are relevant factors in assessing a candidate’s ability to serve as

7

an adequate fiduciary for a class . . . .”); In re Safeguard Scientifics, 216 F.R.D. 577, 582 (E.D. Pa.

8

2003) (denying a motion for class certification because “serious concerns with credibility leave Lead

9

Plaintiff vulnerable to further attacks that would impose an unnecessary disadvantage on the class”).

10

Like the movants rejected in Surebeam and Network Associates, Doral Bank too is subject to

11

adequacy attacks and cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Doral and its senior executives

12

have been alleged to have engaged in mortgage-related misconduct, the Company was forced to

13

enter into various consent orders with regulators, and a former senior executive is currently awaiting

14

trial on criminal fraud charges for his role in the misconduct. Like the courts in Surebeam and

15

Network Associates which refused to appoint as lead plaintiff the movant with the largest financial

16

interest because of potential adequacy defects, this Court too should deny Doral’s motion.

2.

Doral Bank Suffers from Debilitating Conflicts of Interest
Which Preclude Its Appointment

Washington Mutual and Doral have employed several of the same senior executives and

directors. This subjects Doral to additional unique defenses and creates conflicts which also

preclude its appointment as lead plaintiff.5 For example, Frank W. Baier was a member of Doral’s

Board of Directors from July 2007 through September 2008, when he left to concentrate on his role



5
Perhaps these defects provide explanation for Doral Bank’s failure to comply with the PSLRA’s notice
requirements, 15 U.S.C. §77z-1(a)(3)(A), and willingness to join the related 2006 action and cede control of this action
to the lead plaintiff and its counsel in the 2006 action. O’Mara Decl., Ex. 9.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 7 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

as Special Advisor to Washington Mutual’s President and Chief Executive Officer. O’Mara Decl.,

2

Ex. 7. In May 2009, after spending 2008 in the upper echelon of Washington Mutual’s decision

3

making apparatus, Doral’s Board of Directors re-appointed Mr. Baier to serve as a Doral director.

4

O’Mara Decl., Ex. 8. Similarly, Doral’s treasurer during the relevant period and former CFO

5

(Marangal I. Domingo) is the former Washington Mutual treasurer and served as an executive vice

6

president for finance and strategy for Countrywide’s banking subsidiary. See, e.g., McDermott

7

Decl., Ex. D (discussing recruitment of former Washington Mutual and Countrywide treasurer to

8

serve as Doral treasurer).

9

The class should not be burdened with having a lead plaintiff which has this web of

10

interconnected relationships, the existence of which only further subjects Doral Bank to unique

11

defenses. See Bally, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6243, at *19 (“the PSLRA . . . provides that we ask

12

simply whether [a movant] is likely to be ‘subject to’ [unique defenses] . . . [not that] the defense is

13

likely to succeed”); In re Enron Corp., Sec. Litig., 206 F.R.D. 427, 455-56 (S.D. Tex. 2002)

14

(declining to appoint lead plaintiff whose potential defenses and conflicts could endanger the

15

interests of the rest of the class); see also Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,

16

Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Regardless of whether the issue is framed

17

in terms of the typicality . . . or the adequacy of its representation . . . there is a danger that absent

18

class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.”). For this

19

additional reason, Doral Bank should not be appointed as lead plaintiff.

B.

Greater Pennsylvania Is the “Most Adequate Plaintiff” and Should Be
Appointed Lead Plaintiff

There can be no question that Greater Pennsylvania prima facie satisfies the requirements of

Rule 23 and is the movant most capable of adequately representing the interests of the class. See,

e.g., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund’s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and

Approval of Selection of Counsel (Docket #29) at §III.A.2.b. Greater Pennsylvania is a

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1



sophisticated pension fund overseen by a board of trustees. It has a record of successfully
GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

- 8 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

prosecuting shareholder actions and is accustomed to acting as a fiduciary and directing outside

2

lawyers. See, e.g., McDermott Decl., Ex. B (Certification). Greater Pennsylvania is committed to

3

actively overseeing counsel and vigorously prosecuting this case to a successful conclusion for the

4

benefit of the class. To this end, Greater Pennsylvania has selected and retained competent counsel

5

to represent them and the class. See McDermott Decl., Ex. E.

6

In the end, only Greater Pennsylvania has made the required threshold Rule 23 showing and

7

it alone is the presumptively “most adequate plaintiff.” Greater Pennsylvania should be appointed as

8

lead plaintiff.

9

III. CONCLUSION

Doral Bank has failed to meet its burden by making a threshold showing of typicality or

adequacy. It is subject to unique defenses which prevent it from meeting the PSLRA’s Rule 23

adequacy and typicality requirements. Greater Pennsylvania respectfully submits that its motion

should be granted, and Doral’s competing motion denied.

DATED: March 8, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER
RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
DARREN J. ROBBINS
SCOTT H. SAHAM
BRIAN O. O’MARA

s/ BRIAN O. O’MARA
BRIAN O. O’MARA

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
619/231-7423 (fax)

[Proposed] Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 9 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC
DOUGLAS C. McDERMOTT
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: 206/684-9463
206/749-9467 (fax)

[Proposed] Liaison Counsel



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)



- 10 -

McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467



1

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 8, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

3

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail

4

addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have

5

mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF

6

participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.

7

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

8

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 8, 2010.

RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP

s/ BRIAN O. O’MARA
BRIAN O. O’MARA

COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
619/231-7423 (fax)
E-mail: [email protected]









9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

508110_1

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS
PENSION FUND’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND IN
OPPOSITION TO THE COMPETING MOTION
(2:09-cv-01557-MJP)





McDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154

Telephone: 206/684-9463 • Fax: 206/749-9467

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.2.3

Page 1 of 2

Mailing Information for a Case 2:09-cv-01557-MJP

Electronic Mail Notice List

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.

 James J. Coster

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

 Larry Steven Gangnes

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

 Christopher M Huck

[email protected],[email protected]

 Stellman Keehnel

[email protected],[email protected]

 Paul Joseph Kundtz

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

 Joel P Laitman

[email protected]

 Christopher E Lometti

[email protected]

 John D Lowery

[email protected],[email protected]

 Douglas C McDermott

[email protected],[email protected]

 Bradley T. Meissner

[email protected]

 Brian O. O'Mara
[email protected]

 Nancy A Pacharzina

[email protected],[email protected]

 Daniel B Rehns

[email protected]

 Kenneth M Rehns

[email protected]

 Rogelio Omar Riojas

[email protected],[email protected]

 Darren J Robbins

[email protected]

 Joshua M. Rubins

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

 Gavin Williams Skok

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?724370945649099-L_426_0-1

3/8/2010

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.2.3

Page 2 of 2

 Kim D Stephens

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

 Steven J Toll

[email protected],[email protected]

Manual Notice List

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual
noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices
or labels for these recipients.

 (No manual recipients)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?724370945649099-L_426_0-1

3/8/2010