Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING LEAD COUNSEL HARMON, District Judge. The above referenced proposed class action consists of thirty-two consolidated actions brought by Plaintiffs composed of Waste Management, Inc.’s stock, bond and/or options purchasers or acquirers whose investments were obtained during a proposed class period, as yet undetermined, sometime between 6/10/98 and 8/16/99. The consolidated action alleges misrepresentations of material fact and omissions regarding Waste Management, Inc.’s business and finances, specifically with respect to its price adjustments, competitive position, and integration of mergers and acquisitions, that caused Waste Management, Inc.’s stock to inflate artificially and allowed insider-officials to sell their investments for proceeds of approximately $57 million, in violation of federal securities laws. Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Motion of the City of Philadelphia, through its Board of Pensions and Retirement, for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead Counsel (instrument # 7); (2) Motion of the Taft-Hartley Pension Group (“Taft-Hartley”) for appointment of Lead. Plaintiffs, approval of Lead Counsel, and entry of proposed pretrial order No. 1(# 11); (3) Motion of the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (“Connecticut”) for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel (# 14); (4) Motion to appoint the Waste Management Plaintiffs Group (‘WMPG”) as Lead Plaintiffs and to approve Lead Plaintiffs’ choice of counsel (# 16); (5) WMI Institutional Shareholder Group’s motion to appoint certain of its representatives as lead Plaintiffs and to approve lead Plaintiffs’ choice of counsel (# 17); (6) Motion to add the Houston Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund to the Public Pension Funds Group (# 28); (7) WMPG’s motion for expedited consideration of # 58 (# 59); (8) Connecticut’s petition for leave to file reply memorandum in support of its appointment as Lead Plaintiff (# 64); (9) Connecticut’s petition for leave to substitute original affidavit for its faxed affidavit in # 64 (# 74); (10) WMPG’s motion to vacate order issued by Judge Gilmore in the Korsinsky matter (#75) appointing lead plaintiff because Judge Gilmore no longer had jurisdiction to issue the order following consolidation of that suit with the above referenced action; (11) Connecticut’s motion for leave to file response to additional submissions by WMPG and the Public Pension Funds Group (# 103); and (12) WMPG’s motion for expedited consideration of motion and, in addition, motion for the Court to review two additional documents in camera and to file them under seal (# 108); and supplement and motion for the Court to review two additional documents in camera and to file them under seal (# 111). As threshold matters, the Court grants those motions to which no opposition has been filed, i.e., # 28 (motion to join Houston Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund as a member of the Public Pension Funds Group), 64, 74, 75, and 108. WMPG’s motion (# 59) for expedited consideration of # 58, i.e., of WMPG’s expedited motion to review documents in camera and to place them under seal, is MOOT in light of this order. Furthermore, in light of instrument # 43, a letter from counsel for the City of Philadelphia indicating that it wishes to withdraw its motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and its counsel as Lead Counsel (# 7) and to join the motion of WMPG (# 16), # 7 is hereby DEEMED WITHDRAWN and joinder of the City of Philadelphia with WMPG is GRANTED. The Court further concludes WMPG’s [second and third] motion for expedited consideration and motions for the Court to review two additional documents in camera and to file them under seal (# 108) and (# 111) should be DENIED. In opposition the Public Pension fund indicates that it and counsel for another movant never received WMPG’s first motion (# 58), which the Court granted because no opposition was filed (# 106). Because the Court agrees that an effort to create the appearance of cohesion and decisiveness by submitting evidence of a recent meeting of a group of plaintiffs hand-picked by their counsel undermines the purpose of the PSLRA, while the in camera, under seal consideration of such materials by the Court deprives other movants from a fair opportunity to contest the adequacy of WMPG’s steering committee, the Court denies the motion. Moreover, after reviewing the sealed materials submitted after the first motion was granted, the Court found they did not provide anything more informative than WMPG’s arguments presented in its many pleadings before this Court, which the Court has considered. Thus at issue here are four motions filed in the instant action for appointment of Lead Plaintiff(s) and Lead Counsel by the Taft-Hartley Pension Group (# 11), Connecticut (# 14), the Waste Management Plaintiffs Group (# 16), and the WMI Institutional Shareholder’s Group (# 17). The Public Pension Funds Group was initially part of the WMI Institutional Shareholder Group that timely filed a motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and approval of Lead Counsel (# 17), on which Public Pension Funds Group still relies so that it will not be proeedurally barred from consideration. Public Pension Funds Group now separately seeks appointment as Lead Plaintiff with the newly joined Houston Firefighters’ Relief & Retirement Fund (# 29). Moreover, because the Court vacated Judge Gilmore’s order in H-99-2838 that erroneously granted that case’s sole named Plaintiff Gersh Korsinsky’s motion (# 3 in H-99-2838) to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and his attorneys as Lead Counsel after that case had been consolidated into the instant action on the docket of the undersigned judge, Korsinsky’s motion is effectively also pending. Thus pending pleadings reflect that five parties seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of their attomey(s) as Lead Counsel. Nevertheless, Taft-Hartley filed a notice (# 93) indicating that it now supports the motion of the Public Pension Funds Group to be appointed Lead Plaintiff. Thus the Court finds that Tafh-Hartley’s motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiffs (# 111) is MOOT. Taft-Hartle/s notice states, however, that its support amends the Public Pension Funds Group’s motion to add Taft-Hartley’s counsel (Clements, O’Neill, Pierce, Nickens & Wilson) as co-Liaison Counsel and co-trial counsel. Applicable Law Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), which amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by adding Section 21D, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, in class actions brought under federal securities laws, “the court shall consider any motion made by a purported class member” in determining the adequacy of a proposed lead plaintiff to oversee the class action. Furthermore, “the presumption [of the adequacy of the plaintiff with the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation] described in [15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) ] may be rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that the proposed individual or entity will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or that he/she/or it is subject to unique defenses that render [him/her/or it] incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Based on the express language of the statute, courts have concluded that defendants lack standing to challenge the adequacy or typicality of the proposed lead plaintiffs at this early stage of the litigation. See, e.g., Takeda v. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., 67 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1138 (C.D.Cal.1999); Gluck v. CellStar Corp., 976 F.Supp. 542, 550 (N.D.Tex.1997); Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc., 939 F.Supp. 57, 60-61 (D.Mass.1996); Fischler v. Am-South Bancorporation, 1997 WL 118429, *2 (M.D.Fla.1997); Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 1997 WL 314422, *2 (N.D.Tex.1997). The Court observes that while defendants lack standing to challenge plaintiffs’ motions to appoint certain among them as Lead Plaintiff, defendants do have the right subsequently in a class certification hearing to object to those Plaintiffs as typical of and adequate representatives of the proposed class. In re Nice Systems Securities Litig., 188 F.R.D. 206, 218 n. 11 (D.N.J.1999); Zuckerman, 1997 WL 314422 at *2; Gluck, 976 F.Supp. at 547; Greebel, 939 F.Supp. at 60-61; In re Cephalon Securities Litig., 1996 WL 515203 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 27, 1996). Furthermore, this Court may sua sponte evaluate the adequacy of any proposed person or group of persons as Lead Plaintiff(s). Takeda, 67 F.Supp.2d at 1138; Sakhrani, 78 F.Supp.2d at 854 (court has independent responsibility to consider appointment of lead counsel). It is clear that “[t]he PSLRA calls for greater supervision by the Court in the selection of which plaintiffs will control the litigation.” In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litigation, 182 F.R.D. 42, 45 (S.D.N.Y.1998). Under the relevant portions of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i) and (a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), after national notice of the pending proposed class action by a plaintiff within twenty days of his/her/or its filing of a class complaint, any member of the putative class may file within sixty days of the publishing of that notice a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A). If more than one suit is filed with substantially the same claims, only the plaintiff in the first-filed action need publish the notice. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii). In the instant action, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs in Perkins filed on Business Wire on July 8, 1999 an adequate notice of the pendency of this action and description of its claims. After consolidation of parallel actions, under the PSLRA a district court shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the “most adequate plaintiff’) in accordance with this subparagraph. Furthermore, Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the amended Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the Court to adopt a rebuttable 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 (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. § 78u — 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The statutory presumption of appointment as lead plaintiff, as noted, may only be rebutted by another plaintiff through evidence that the lead plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or is “subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Under Section 21D(a)(8)(B) of the Exchange Act, therefore, the lead plaintiff or plaintiffs must possess not only the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, but must also meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23(a) provides that a party may serve as a class representative only if the following four requirements are met: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Typicality is achieved where the named plaintiffs’ claims arise “from the same event or course of conduct that gives rise to claims of other class members and the claims are based on the same legal theory.” Longden v. Sunderman, 123 F.R.D. 547, 556 (N.D.Tex.1988). Typicality and adequacy are directly relevant to the choice of the class representative and Lead Plaintiff in securities fraud cases. See, e.g., In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 49 (S.D.N.Y.1998); Gluck, 976 F.Supp. at 546; Fischler, 1997 WL 118429 *2. Although the inquiry at this stage of the litigation in determining the Lead Plaintiff is not as searching as the one triggered by a subsequent motion for class certification, the proposed Lead Plaintiff must make at least a preliminary showing that it has claims that are typical of those of the putative class and the capacity to provide adequate representation for those class members. Switzenbaum v. Orbital Sciences Corp. (“Orbital I”), 187 F.R.D. 246, 248-49 (E.D.Va.1999) (Compendium (# Ex.F), citing Chill v. Green Tree, 181 F.R.D. 398, 407 n. 8 (D.Minn.1998), and Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036, *6 (N.D.Ill. Aug.11, 1997)). Under the PSLRA, the Lead Plaintiff, subject to court approval, is to select and retain Lead Counsel. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court should not disturb the Lead Plaintiffs choice of counsel unless it is necessary to “protect the interests of the [plaintiff] class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa). In passing the PSLRA in December 1995, Congress was reacting to significant evidence of abusive practices and manipulation by class action lawyers of their clients in private securities lawsuits. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. at 31 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.A.A.N. 730 at 731 (“Conf.Report”) (Ex. A to #38). One response by Congress was the requirement that the Court appoint as “lead plaintiff’ in each securities class action the shareholder, preferably an institutional investor, with the largest financial interest in the litigation in order to encourage institutional investors to come forward to manage the litigation and supervise the class action lawyers. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B); Conf. Report No. 104-369 at 733-34. The Conference Report, at 34, explained, “Throughout the process, it is clear that the plaintiff class has difficulty exercising any meaningful direction over the case brought on its behalf .... Because class counsels’ fees and expenses sometimes amount to one-third or more of the recovery, class counsel frequently has a significantly greater interest in the litigation than any individual member of the class.” Thus one goal of the PSLRA is to have the plaintiff class, represented by a member with a substantial financial interest in the recovery as incentive, monitor the litigation to prevent its being “lawyer-driven.” Courts have diverged in deciding whether the losses of individual plaintiffs may be aggregated into a group loss to create a lead plaintiff group with the “greatest financial interest” in the outcome of the litigation. Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 79 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1152-58 (N.D.Cal.1999) (and cases cited therein). Some courts have read literally the statute dealing with determining who is the most adequate plaintiff, which employs the phrase, “the person or group of persons” that meet the designated criteria. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Id. at 1153 & n. 8, citing as published opinions of courts allowing aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs into a Lead Plaintiff Group, In re Olsten Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 286 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Switzenbaum v. Orbital, 187 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.Va.1999); In re Milestone Scientific, 183 F.R.D. 404 (D.N.J.1998); In re Cendant, 182 F.R.D. 144 (D.N.J.1998); In re Oxford, 182 F.R.D. 42; Chill v. Green Tree Financial, 181 F.R.D. 398 (D.Minn.1998); Gluck, 976 F.Supp. 542; In re Donnkenny, Inc. Securities Litig., 171 F.R.D. 156 (S.D.N.Y.1997); Greebel, 939 F.Supp. 57. See also Yousefi v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 F.Supp.2d 1061, 1067-68 (C.D.Cal.1999) (recognizing tension between PSLRA’ language permitting aggregation of claims and its emphatic purpose of placing control of securities class actions in hands of a small and finite number of plaintiffs, but finding that it contemplates the aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs as a permissible, if suboptimal, result). Other judges have allowed aggregation where necessary to represent varying class periods or to guarantee effective control and supervision of the lawyers. Aronson, 79 F.Supp.2d at 1153, citing Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp., 188 F.R.D. 577, 585-86 (N.D.Cal.1999). See also In re Baan Co. Sec. Litig., 186 F.R.D. 214, 224 (D.D.C.1999) (“a court generally should only approve a group that is small enough to be capable of effectively managing the litigation and the lawyers”). Some courts have rejected aggregation of “unrelated” Plaintiffs and permit a group Lead Plaintiff only where it involves “a small number of members that share such an identity of characteristics, distinct from those of almost all other class members, that they can almost be seen as being the same person.” Aronson, 79 F.Supp.2d at 1153-54, citing In re Telxon Corp. Securities Litig., 67 F.Supp.2d 803, 809-13 (N.D.Ohio 1999) (contrasting a “group” with a “melange of unrelated persons”). Aronson characterizes this approach as defining a “group” under the PSLRA as having “a meaningful relationship preceding the litigation, and ... united by more than the mere happenstance of having bought some securities. The classic example of such a restrictive group would be a partnership, which has no separate legal identity, but shares in both assets and liabilities. Other such groups might be the various subsidiaries of a corporation or members of a family.” Id. at 1153-54. The Aronson court, faced with groups of plaintiffs as large as 4,000 competing for lead plaintiff, adopted this strict approach. Id. at 1154. Aronson emphasizes that such a narrow view accords with several dictionary definitions of the word “group” and is consistent with the legislative intent to increase investors’/clients’ control over appointed counsel, since any ambiguity in the statute should be resolved by a determination of the drafters’ intent. See also In re Network Associates, 76 F.Supp.2d at 1026 (a group of plaintiffs should be appointed as lead plaintiff only where they can effectively control the litigation; aggregations of unaffiliated persons or entities whose only connection is the litigation do not satisfy this requirement); In re Donnkenny Securities Litigation, 171 F.R.D. 156, 157-58 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (denied plaintiffs motion to appoint two institutional investors and four individuals as lead plaintiff group because “[t]o allow an aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs defeats the purpose of choosing a lead plaintiff .... To allow lawyers to designate unrelated plaintiffs as a ‘group’ and aggregate their financial stakes would allow and encourage lawyers to direct the litigation.”); Sakhrani, 78 F.Supp.2d at 853 (the PSLRA gives court discretion to appoint a single plaintiff or a small group with effective oversight of class counsel and with a greater connection than their common losing investment as lead counsel, based on facts of particular case). The burden is on those seeking to aggregate to demonstrate the cohesiveness of their purported “group” and that failure to provide significant information about the identity of the members other than a conclusory statement of names, transactions for purchase of securities, and largest financial interest should result in denial of their application for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Switzenbaum v. Orbital Sciences Corp. (“Orbital I”), 187 F.R.D. 246, 248-50 (E.D.Ya.1999) (Compendium (# Ex.F); Ravens v. Iftikar, 174 F.R.D. 651, 654 (N.D.Cal.1997)). Furthermore, the SEC in an amicus curiae brief filed in the Orbital litigation, Compendium Ex. G at p. 14, made clear that a group of plaintiffs should be quite small: “The Commission believes that ordinarily, in order to ensure adequate stakes, monitoring, coordination and accountability, such a group should be no more than three to five persons, and the fewer the better.” Even then, the SEC emphasizes that the group’s “members should be evaluated separately for their incentive and ability to work together to control the litigation.” Id. It appears to this Court that too loose a definition of “group” would result in the manipulation and manufacturing of enormous groups of unrelated investors by attorneys in order to obtain appointment of an uncohesive, disparate, and thus weakened, group of Lead Plaintiffs and approval of themselves as Lead Counsel, a lucrative role. Sakhrani, 78 F.Supp.2d at 851-52 (and cases cited therein); In re Network Associates, 76 F.Supp.2d at 1022. Some of the accusations made in this and other securities fraud cases on its docket about Weiss & Yourman’s method of recruiting plaintiffs demonstrate the dangers of undermining the PSLRA when such restrictions are not imposed. After a careful review of the case law, this Court finds that the strictest approach, requiring at maximum a small group with the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation and a pre-litigation relationship based on more than their losing investment, satisfies the terms of the PSLRA and serves the purpose behind its enactment. Accordingly, the Court summarizes in somewhat abbreviated form, in an attempt to eliminate much of the redundancy and distracting detail in the massive file, the four remaining requests for appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and approval of Lead Counsel and the opposition to each. Connecticut’s Motion for Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel Connecticut, during the period from June 10, 1998 through August 13, 1999, purchased 528,100 shares of Waste Management stock, or 376,210 net shares, at the cost of $25,482,603 and suffered losses of $13,593,617 because of Defendants’ alleged misconduct. Certification of Catherine E. LaMarr, General Counsel for the Office of the Treasurer for the State of Connecticut, attached to Motion. It claims that it is the most adequate plaintiff to serve as Lead Plaintiff because it has complied with the PSLRA’s procedural requirements by filing its motion for appointment within sixty days of the notice of the class action and its certification delineating its transactions with Waste Management securities during the class period, has reviewed the complaints, and is willing to serve as a representative on behalf of the putative class. It is overseen by the Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, Denise L. Nappier, who is the sole fiduciary for Connecticut having authority to initiate suit on its behalf. Affid. of Catherine E. LaMarr, General Counsel, at 2. Furthermore, Connecticut maintains that it has selected competent and experienced counsel in Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucha-row LLP, which has recognized recently in various cases as appropriate Lead Counsel. Plasse Affid., Ex, C. Connecticut maintains that it has the largest financial interest in the relief sought. The term “largest financial interest” standard should be read broadly in terms of (1) the number of shares purchased, (2) the number of net shares purchased, (3) the total net funds expended by the plaintiff(s) during the class period, and (4) the approximate losses suffered by the plaintiff(s). Lax, 1997 WL 461036, *5; Olsten, 3 F.Supp.2d at 295; Milestone, 183 F.R.D. at 412; Gluck, 976 F.Supp. at 546 (number of shares purchased during class period, overall dollar investment, and estimate of probable losses). At the time Connecticut filed its motion, no party claimed to have sustained greater financial losses from the purchase and sale of Waste Management common stock during the class period. As an institutional investor, the type preferred as Lead Plaintiff under the PSLRA, that has complied with all prerequisites, Connecticut asks to be appointed Lead Plaintiff. It quotes from the House Conference Report No. 104-369,104th Cong. 1st Sess. at 34 (1995), The Conference Committee believes that ... in many cases the beneficiaries of pension funds — small investors — ultimately have the greatest stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. Cumulatively, these small investors represent a single large investor interest. Institutional investors and other class members with large amounts at stake will represent the interests of the plaintiff class more effectively than class members with small amounts at stake. Connecticut also asserts that it satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, in particular typicality and adequacy. Its claims are typical in that it purchased Waste Management stock during the class' period at prices artificially inflated by Defendants’ false and misleading statements and that it was damaged by the fraud. It is also an adequate representative because its chosen attorneys have the experience and ability to conduct the litigation and because Connecticut does not have interests antagonistic to those of the class. Rubenstein v. Collins, 162 F.R.D. 534, 538-39 (S.D.Tex.1995). As evidenced by its certification affirming its interest in participating as Lead Plaintiff in these consolidated cases, Connecticut states that it will protect the class’ interests and has retained experienced counsel for prosecution of this securities law class action. In sum, Connecticut urges that to allow the aggregation of competing multi-mem-bered groups’ losses without their showing the requisite relatedness as a “group” under the PSLRA would undermine the benefits of having Connecticut, an institutional investor with the largest loss, as active Lead Plaintiff and would defeat the goals of the PSLRA. Furthermore, in addition to having competent and experienced counsel in a single law firm, Goodkind Labaton, to represent the class, Connecticut has entered into a fee agreement with that firm for lower fees that are typically-awarded in securities fraud class actions. LaMarr Affidavit at ¶ 19. Opposition to Connecticut’s Motion WMPG, which is composed of public and private institutions and large individual investors that have lost over $46.6 million, opposes Connecticut’s motion. Not only does WMPG claim to be the group of persons with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class, but it argues that the actual statutory language of the PSLRA does not reflect a preference for institutional investors or give them privileged status. As indicted, this Court finds the legislative history, the SEC’s pronouncements, and the recent trend in court decisions persuasive to the contrary conclusion. WMPG first emphasizes that Connecticut, which has lost only $13.5 million, is composed of six separate state pension systems for various types of employees of the State of Connecticut. WMPG points out that Connecticut statutory provisions separately created each of these legal entities. Each system operates as an independent legal entity with its own management structure for the benefit of the designated type(s) of Connecticut state employees. Connecticut has cited Connecticut Regulation § 3-31b-3, which allows the separate Connecticut pension systems to place their funds into seven combined investment funds created and administered by the State Treasurer, including money market, domestic and foreign equity, fixed income, real estate investments, and private market investment funds. WMPG notes that Regulation § 3-31b-4, not cited by Connecticut, states that each participating system shall have its own separate interest in each combined fund. WMPG insists that it is the seven pooled investment funds, and not the separate retirement systems, that are referenced as the “Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds” and that seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff here. WMPG charges that LaMarr’s Declaration fails to state that the Connecticut Treasurer has obtained the authority of any of the six separate pension systems, the State Retirement Commission or the Trustee of the State Teachers Retirement Fund to sue on their behalf. Connecticut’s motion is therefore made on behalf of something that is not a legal entity, but only a descriptive term, a name used to designate the seven pooled investment funds listed in Regulation § 3-31b-3. WMPG claims that the six separate employee pension funds, which, under Regulation 3-31b^4, are the actual owners of the investments, including Waste Management stock, made through those funds and which have actually lost the money, have not moved for Lead Plaintiff status. WMPG complains that the motion also makes it impossible to determine which of the six pension systems actually purchased stock, how many shares, when the purchases were made, at what price, and which pension system suffered what loss. Moreover, treating the Connecticut funds as a single legal entity entitled to appointment as Lead Plaintiff with a $13.5 million loss is contrary to the clear language of the PSLRA and nearly every court decision interpreting it, which make clear that because aggregation of losses is allowed, the group of persons with the largest loss, not the largest individual loser, that is presumptively entitled to appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Reiger v. Altris Software, Case No. 98CV05285 (JFS), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14705 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 11, 1998); Bobrow v. Mobilemedia, Inc., No. 96-4715, Order and Letter Op. at 5 (D.N.J. Mar. 31,1997). In contrast WMPG highlights the fact that it is an organized functioning group with an eleven-member steering committee composed of institutional and individual investors with the largest aggregated losses to oversee and manage the litigation on behalf of WMPG, and that these eleven members, themselves, have lost more than $80 million. See chart, p. 2 of # 1, delineating names, description of securities purchased, and loss of each of the steering committee members. WMPG explains that to avoid a dispute, it asked Connecticut to join WMPG and to participate as one of the steering committee, while its counsel, Goodkind Labaton, could become a third co-lead counsel, but WMPG's offer was refused by Connecticut. WMPG argues that Connecticut cannot serve as Lead Plaintiff because Connecticut’s aggregated losses are substantially less than the aggregated losses of WMPG, as well as less than the aggregated losses of the eleven members of the steering committee and less than the aggregated $16.2 million losses of the twelve other institutional investors in WMPG. WMPG contends that Connecticut is not entitled to special treatment because it is composed of public pension systems, i.e., institutional investors. The PSLRA creates a presumption that the group of persons with the largest, aggregated financial interest in the relief sought by the class shall be appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiffs. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(in)(I)(aa)-(cc). This provision favors large investors but is not limited to public and private institutions, and the statute does not provide that an institution has an advantaged position. Even if it did, WMPG emphasizes that it includes twelve public and private institutional investors with losses exceeding those of Connecticut. Furthermore, WMPG maintains, not only is “Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds” not a legal entity, but it is not composed of the beneficial owner(s) or purchaser(s) of Waste Management stock purchased during the class period. The actual purchasers and owners are the various retirements systems, which have not quantified their individual purchases and losses and have not moved for Lead Plaintiff status. Thus the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds lack standing to pursue the claim under the federal securities funds and therefore are not adequate plaintiffs. See, e.g., In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 169 F.R.D. 493, 508 (S.D.N.Y.1996)(Member funds, not state of Louisiana, have right to assert their claims as they were the actual purchasers and sellers of the securities); Prudential Ins. Co. v. BMC Indus., Inc., 655 F.Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y.1987)(employer Atlantic Richfield lacked standing to sue because retirement plans and their employee beneficiaries suffered actual damages). The motion is defective because it does not identify which, if any, of the retirement systems actually have or has standing to pursue such claims. An additional obstacle for Connecticut, according WMPG, is that under Connecticut General Statutes § 45a~541(e), § 5-155a(a) and (c)(1999), the trustee of each pension system involved here is required to invest and manage its assets solely in the interests of the respective system’s beneficiaries. Hail Decl., Ex. 30. Thus the systems cannot spend or risk their assets for the benefit of anyone other than the plan’s beneficiaries. Assuming fiduciary status as Lead Plaintiff(s) would expose the retirement system(s) to possible liability for the costs of prosecution if the case is unsuccessful, or to legal fees and costs of the defense under the mandatory sanction provision of the PSLRA if the suit should be found to be frivolous. See, e.g., Oxford Health Plans, 182 F.R.D. at 47. Moreover, WMPG asks whether Connecticut may, in the fiduciary capacity of a class representative, represent the interests of absent class members when the state statutorily requires it to act in the sole interest of its plan beneficiaries. Such a potential conflict would be aggravated since Connecticut has not sued for, nor does it pursue recovery on behalf of, purchasers of Waste Management’s publicly traded 2% and 4% convertible debentures, due in 2002 and 2005 respectively, and it is thus disqualified from serving as Lead Plaintiff, as is WMI Institutional Shareholder Group for the same reason. WMPG also claims that Connecticut did not acquire any Waste Management common stock in exchange transactions nor purchase any publicly traded options to purchase stock of Waste Management. In contrast to Connecticut’s fiduciary responsibility to act only in the interests of its beneficiaries, and thus not in the differing interests of the larger absent class, WMPG’s eleven-person steering committee can represent the competing interests of all purchasers of Waste Management’s publicly traded securities sued for in this action. WMPG also asserts that the Treasurer of the State of Connecticut Denise Nappier is too busy to monitor this complex securities class action litigation because she is otherwise occupied with an investigation of her predecessor, Paul Silvester, who pled guilty on September 23, 1999 to federal racketeering and money laundering charges amid allegations that he received illegal kickbacks and finder’s fees for investing state pension funds during his term of office and funneling monies into his 1998 campaign. The scandal has led to an investigation of all financial firms that managed investments for the State pension system, with Nappier involved with the Connecticut Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney in a full review of the matter. Furthermore, suggests WMPG, Connecticut’s alleged losses of $13.6 million from its Waste Management common stock, with many of the transactions in issue occurring during the period of Silves-ter’s administration, are uncertain because of the criminal charges that state pension assets were illegally directed to investment managers, who in turn may be involved with this litigation. The state is seeking restitution and possibly rescission of all trades traced to assets improperly directed to this scheme by Silvester’s administration. Connecticut cannot be an adequate representative if its interests are divergent from those of the class. In reply (# 65), Connecticut emphasizes that the other original competing groups for appointment as Lead Plaintiff have “shifted.” Eleven members of the original forty-eight member WMI Institutional Shareholder Group have withdrawn, and eight of those have formed a separate group, the Public Pension Funds Group, which seeks to add a new member, the Houston Firefighters, without aggregating Houston Firefighters’ losses because of its untimely joinder. Many of the remaining investors did not timely move for Lead Plaintiff designation. Moreover, there are too many members to qualify as a “group” and their ability to control is dubious. Connecticut observes that WMPG alternately presents as its proposed Lead Plaintiff all of its 660 members (with a $46.6 million loss), a twelve-member “institutional group” (with a $16.2 million loss), its eleven-member steering committee (with a $80 million plus loss), or its three-person executive committee of that steering committee (loss amount not identified). Connecticut maintains that this “shell game” only emphasizes WMPG’s “lack of cohesiveness.” Connecticut characterizes the situation as a revolving door through which the groups’ membership and structure are constantly changing. Connecticut quotes from Orbital I, at 251 (Ex. F to Opposition Compendium, # 15), to demonstrate that its rationale regarding lack of cohesiveness disqualifying such groups from appointment as Lead Plaintiff applies here, too: In short, the Orbital Plaintiffs Group is unable to agree on who its members are, some of its proposed members are ineligible to act as the Lead Plaintiff in any event, one formulation of the Group would include more people than could possibly manage the case, and the Group has never been forthcoming about any of these conflicts at all. With this degree of disorder among its leadership ranks, it cannot credibly claim to offer adequate representation to others. Under these circumstances, the Orbital Plaintiffs Group is not entitled to a presumptive designation as the Lead Plaintiff, and even if it were, its inability to manage itself so far would amply rebut the presumption that could fairly and adequately protect others. In contrast, Connecticut asserts that it remains the applicant with the single largest loss, that its sole trustee, Denise L. Nappier, Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, has the authority and standing to be Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Connecticut and to control the prosecution of this litigation, that Connecticut has retained a single law firm highly experienced in securities litigation and has negotiated reduced fees with it, and that Connecticut has the resources, personnel, and commitment to prosecute this action vigorously. Reply Affidavit of Catherine E. LaMarr, ¶¶ 5,8,11-16, attached to # 65. With support from LaMarr’s Reply Affidavit (# 66), Connecticut shows that the State Treasurer has the right to bring this action on behalf of the funds. Connecticut is a single fund into which all of the combined moneys of the various pension systems (the funds) are combined. Connecticut then invests the pooled money into several portfolios based on various investment objectives. It purchased the Waste Management stock at issue here from the pooled money. Using the broad grant of authority to invest the state’s trust funds (Conn.Gen.Stat. § 3 — 13d), enter into “such contractual agreements as may be necessary” (Conn.Gen.Stat. § 3-lla), and do all things “necessary, convenient or desirable to carry out the powers” granted to her (Conn. Gen. State § 3-76h(l)), the Treasurer has entered into agreements with asset managers to purchase securities on behalf of Connecticut, participated in various class action and shareholder litigation, including Cedent and In re Oxford health Plans Inc. Sec. Litig., filed proofs of claim on behalf of Connecticut in connection with settlements of securities fraud actions, and entered into other agreements, including custodial agreements, in connection with investments made on Connecticut's behalf. The Treasurer has also authorized the filing of its motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiff here. Connecticut accuses Milberg Weiss of hypocrisy in arguing that Connecticut does not have standing here to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff because Mil-berg Weiss filed a similar motion on behalf of Connecticut (ánd not the separate pensions systems) for appointment of then state Treasurer Paul Silvester as trustee of the various pension funds as Lead Plaintiff in In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 144 (D.N.J.1998)(“Cendant ”). Ex. A to Compendium of Exhibits, attached to # 65. Furthermore, Milberg Weiss continues to represent Connecticut in the Cen-dant litigation. Connecticut objects to Milberg Weiss’ challenge to its application to serve as Lead Plaintiff here as a conflict of interest in that Milberg Weiss is acting adversely to Connecticut’s interests here. Connecticut also submits paragraphs 19-21 of General Counsel LaMarr’s Reply Affidavit to refute “offensive” and “baseless”» suggestions that Silvester’s criminal misconduct and guilty plea relate in any way to Connecticut’s investments in Waste Management stock or challenges to the bona fides of present Treasurer Nappier, who is not too busy trying to get Connecticut’s “financial house in order” to prosecute this action. Connecticut insists that none of its investments in Waste Management stock are involved in the criminal investigation and that Connecticut will not seek rescission or restitution with regard to those investments. It accuses Milberg Weiss of a pattern of disloyalty to its clients and placing its own financial interests above those of its past and current clients, including Connecticut, and maintains that Milberg Weiss is “not fit to serve as counsel in this action.” Furthermore, Connecticut argues that WMPG’s contention that Connecticut cannot act for the benefit of class members who are not also its beneficiaries has been rejected as a “false premise” by the Department of Labor in an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Secretary of Labor in Telxon, which concluded that there»was no conflict in benefiting others while fulfilling a fiduciary duty to ERISA plan beneficiaries. Ex. D to Compendium (# 15). Finally Connecticut represents that contrary to WMPG’s assertion that Connecticut cannot properly represent the convertible debenture holders because it did not purchase any bonds, Connecticut states that it purchased both the 2% and 4% convertible debentures during the class period and lost approximately $825,000 in the process. Reply Affidavit at ¶ 20. With its $18.5 million loss in stock, its total financial interest in this litigation is $14,325,000. WMPG’s additional allegations against Connecticut were subsequently withdrawn. WMPG replies also that throughout the course of this litigation, it has remained uniform and consistently requested appointment of all its members as Lead Plaintiffs. It also clarifies that its steering committee and its executive committee are not separate Lead Plaintiffs groups seeking appointment. The “institutional group” was only identified to demonstrate that its institutional investors suffered greater losses than did Connecticut and would play a major role in the litigation. Motion for Order Appointing WMPG Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead Counsel Waste Management, Inc. common stock and convertible bond holders seek an order appointing WMPG as Lead Plaintiff. They argue that because WMPG consists of institutions and individuals that either purchased the common stock and/or convertible bonds through the open market or acquired such in exchange for other securities in corporate acquisitions, WMPG is the most diverse Lead Plaintiff group and therefore the best able to represent the interests of all class members, as well as having the largest financial interest in the relief sought, since WMPG, all together, lost over $30,439,858 following their purchase or acquisition of the Waste Management, Inc. securities. Thus under § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb), it is presumptively entitled to appointment as Lead Plaintiffs. Furthermore, for purposes of efficient management and oversight of the litigation, WMPG has formed the previously mentioned steering committee of eleven members, composed of institutions and individuals, stockholders and bondholders, domiciled all over the United States. In re Oxford, 182 F.R.D. at 49 (appointing two institutions and three individuals as Lead Plaintiffs because “[s]uch structure allows for broad representation and sharing of resources and experience to ensure that the litigation will proceed expeditiously”). WMPG also insists it also meets requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. WMPG raises the following legal issues common to and typical of the class: whether Defendants violated federal securities laws; whether Defendants omitted or misrepresented material facts; whether Defendants knew, had reason to know or recklessly disregarded the fact that their statements were false and misleading; whether the price of Waste Management’s stock was artificially inflated during the class period; and the extent of the damage sustained by class members and the appropriate measure of damages. WMPG also maintains that it will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, that there is no evidence of any antagonism between the interest of WMPG and that of the proposed class members. Each member of WMPG has submitted a signed certification affirming his, her or its willingness to serve as and assume the responsibilities of the class representative. Ex. 1, Greenberg Decl. Moreover, WMPG’s selected law firms as co-lead counsel (Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach L.L.P. and Barrack Ro-dos & Bacine (“Milberg Weiss”)) and as liaison counsel (Greenberg, Peden, Sieg-meyer & Oshman, P.C.) are highly experienced in prosecuting securities class actions. Greenberg Declarations, Exs. 12-13. WMPG does point out that its class period, from October 8,1998 to August 2,1999, is not as long as some asserted in the other consolidated class actions, but that fact alone does not make WMPG atypical or inadequate because all members of the class have the same or similar injury based on the same course of conduct by Defendants. Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., No. 97 C 2715, 1997 WL 461036, *6 (N.D.Ill. Aug.ll, 1997); Chan v. Orthologic Corp., No. CIV 96-1514PHX RCB, 1996 WL 1082812, *3-4 (D.Ariz. Dec. 19, 1996). Should progression of this litigation reveal that the differing class periods significantly affect the parties’ claims, the court can establish subclasses at that time. Chan, 1996 WL 1082812, *4. Opposition to WMPG’s Motion Connecticut contends that the WMPG also is a collection of 660 unrelated investors that cannot satisfy the requirements of the PSLRA, the case law, the SEC, and the intent behind the PSLRA. Underlining the fact that the PSLRA was intended to curtail lawyer-driven litigation controlled by groups of law firms with figurehead plaintiffs, Connecticut asserts that WMPG’s eleven-member steering committee appears to have been selected by forty law firms from a conglomeration of their 660 unrelated plaintiffs and that litigation control with such Lead Plaintiffs would be in the hands of lawyers. (Connecticut also accuses the forty-eight member WMI Institutional Shareholder Group, with its thirteen-member subgroup proposed as Lead Plaintiff, of the same inadequacy.) Connecticut criticizes WMPG for providing no information about the background of members of its steering committee (how and by whom they were chosen; the extent, if any, of prior relationships among them; and whether they have had communications regarding effective prosecution of the case and monitoring of the attorneys). In reply to Connecticut, WMPG emphasizes that Connecticut, a group of six separate state employee pension systems with aggregated losses of $13.5 million, and Public Pension Funds Group, a collection of nine public employee pension funds with aggregated losses of $24.6 million (and with the addition of Houston Firefighters’ Fund, if counted, another $800,000), cannot match WMPG, with its losses of $46.6 million for the entire group. WMPG’s steering committee of eleven members, with their loss, alone, of more than $30 million, thereby making the steering committee the group with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class of any competing group, would oversee and manage the litigation; indeed they have already met, conferred, and reviewed the litigation with counsel, decided upon a strategy, and put in place the mechanics for continued meetings and progression of the suit. Urging that the steering committee be appointed Lead Plaintiffs, WMPG provides a chart showing the source of the investment and the amount of loss of each member of the steering committee. # 50 at p. 2. It reiterates that Connecticut has never identified the losses of each of its members, but clumped them together to try to create one large loss. Moreover, WMPG underlines that its motion is filed on behalf of legally cognizable individuals and entities that were the actual beneficial purchasers of Waste Management securities with unquestionable standing to sue. It also is composed of representatives of all purchasers of all publicly traded securities of Waste Management and alone can fairly and adequately represent the entire class. WMPG reiterates that while the legislative history may reveal a preference for institutional investors, there is no statutory language that reflects that an institutional investor or a public pension fund deserves an advantaged position or status under the PSLRA. Telxon, at 821-822 & n. 30, 33 (avoiding any interpretation of the lead plaintiff provisions that “would transform a preference for institutional investors into a monopolization of the PSLRA actions by institutional investors”). WMPG points out that it, like Connecticut and Public Pension Funds, has public employee pension funds among its members, specifically the Chicago, Birmingham and Philadelphia employee funds. With regard to Connecticut’s and Public Pension Fund’s accusations that WMPG’s proposed Lead Plaintiffs would be controlled by lawyers, WMPG argues that these two competing groups of public pension funds are not united, but are fighting over control of this case because of their separate counsel, each firm trying to gain control of this litigation for themselves. WMPG objects to any limitation on the number of its proposed steering committee. It insists that there is no arbitrary limitation on the number of Lead Plaintiffs indicated anywhere in the PSLRA and that the restriction of the number of Lead Plaintiffs to a handful is a minority view among courts. It further observes that the governing structures of its competitors are much more complex than they represent. For instance, the Connecticut State Teachers Retirement Fund has a board of twelve trustees, while the Connecticut Retirement Commission, which oversees several of the employee systems involved in this litigation, has fifteen trustees. The nine-member Public Pension Funds Group have individual boards of five-to-twelve trustees. WMPG contends that it, too, can play the numbers game. WMPG needs only its top three losers, who have aggregated losses of over $14 million, to beat the Connecticut Funds’ $13.5 million in losses. It needs only its top three or top seven losers to top the remnants of the WMI Institutional Shareholder Group’s losses of $24.1 million with the Hamm family losses, or $12.7 million in losses without the Hamm family. To overcome the Public Pension Funds’ losses of $24.6 million, WMPG needs only its top eight losers’ losses. Such an arbitrary approach, however, misses the key concern here, i.e., the creation of a real management or control structure for an oversight group that would also function as a representative of all potentially competing interests of the whole class. WMPG underlines the fact that it alone has sued for, sought to represent, and included recovery-seeking representatives of each type of purchaser of Waste Management’s publicly traded securities, i.e., open market purchasers of common stock, acquirers of common stock in corporate exchange transactions, purchasers of 2% and 4% debentures, and purchasers of options to purchase Waste Management stock. It insists that its “proposed two co-lead counsel and liaison counsel structure is lean, smaller than the larger multi-co-lead counsel, executive committee and co-liaison structures often used.” There would be no duplication of work nor danger of excess hours of services because under the PSLRA, even if the case is unsuccessful, any fee and expense award is expressly limited to a reasonable percentage of the recovery, making the outcome rather than the number of hours expended on legal work the key. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(6). Indeed, excessive work would reduce counsel’s return if they are successful. Moreover, the combined resources of the three firms could be of benefit. WMI Institutional Shareholder Group’s Motion to Appoint Certain of its Representatives as Lead Plaintiffs and to Approve Choice of Counsel WMI Institutional Shareholder Group, composed of forty-eight investors including significant institutional investors among which are public pension funds, asserts that it suffered losses in excess of $147 million because of its purchase of approximately 6.9 million shares of Waste Management common stock during what it calls the “relevant period,” i.e., June 10, 1998 through August 16, 1999. Ex. 4, Chart Summarizing WMI Institutional Shareholder Group Losses. WMI Institutional Shareholder Group further claims that it satisfies Fed. Rule Civ. P 23 because its claims are typical of class members’ claims (they are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same course of conduct giving rise to other class members’ claims) and the designated representatives will fairly and adequately represent the class because their interests are aligned and there is no evidence of antagonism between the interests of WMI Institutional Shareholder Group and those of other members of the class. In addition, the WMI Institutional Shareholder Group has retained national law firms with substantial expertise in prosecuting securities fraud cases as class counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, Stull Stull & Brody, and Weiss & Yourman as Lead Counsel, and Lynn Stodghill Mel-sheimer & Tillotson, L.L.P. and Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, L.L.P. as Texas liaison counsel. Ex. C to Berger Deck; Ex. C to Brody Deck; Ex. C to Weiss Deck; Ex. G to Berger Deck; and Ex. D to Weiss Deck WMI Institutional Shareholder Group points out that while each of its members has signed a certification expressing willingness to serve as a class representative, it offers thirteen of its members as Proposed Lead Plaintiffs, in a tactic similar to WMPG’s eleven-member steering committee. These thirteen have suffered more that $90 million in losses, representing over 60% of the damages incurred by the whole Group. In the course of this litigation, as noted earlier, significant changes occurred to WMI Institutional Shareholder Group’s membership. In #36, those members of the WMI Institutional Shareholder Group represented by Weiss & Yourman and Stull, Stull & Brody, whose investors purchased approximately 6.9 million shares of common stock and which suffered losses in excess of $136.2 million, thus making them the investors with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, complain of improper contacts with those that have submitted certifications in support of their motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiffs. They assert that WMPG and its attorneys, Milberg Weiss, are attempting to go to any lengths to wrest control of this litigation from the real investors, including threatening Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss and Yourman. See # 38. They make general allegations of misconduct, egregious tactics, and ethical violations in Milberg Weiss’ litigation of numerous securities fraud cases and charge that Congress has targeted the firm for many abusive practices in securities fraud class actions. Id. Specifically with regard to the instant suit, the WMI Institutional Shareholder Group represented by Weiss & Yourman, Stull, Stull & Brody, & Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“Bernstein Li-towitz”) filed their respective clients’ certifications and the joint motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. WMI Institutional Shareholder Group’s original total damages were $136,239,694.70. Of that sum, the damages of those represented by Weiss & Yourman were $100,829,260.67; those represented by Stull, Stull & Brody, $12,773,998.04; and those represented by Bernstein Litowitz, $11,041, 833.88. Subsequently Weiss & Yourman attorneys heard rumors that Milberg Weiss was communicating with Weiss & Yourman’s largest clients. Within the next few weeks, Ranier, Franklin Street, Pennsylvania Trust, and Pacific Century nearly simultaneously requested more information or asked to be withdrawn as proposed Lead Plaintiffs. The WMI Institutional Shareholder Group accuses Milberg Weiss, after failing to intimidate Weiss & Your-man from proceedings, causing Ranier, Pennsylvania Trust and Pacific Century to withdraw so that Milberg Weiss could have absolute control of this litigation. WMI Institutional Shareholder Group further contends that WMPG has submitted certifications defective on their face or on behalf of unqualified Plaintiffs to obtain appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and approval of Milberg Weiss as Lead Counsel. Section 21(a)(2)(A) of the PSLRA requires, “Bach plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, shall provide a sworn certification, which shall be personally signed by such plaintiff and filed with the complaint” attesting to, inter alia, the plaintiffs willingness to serve as a representative party on behalf of the class and to provide testimony if necessary, and the identity of any other actions brought under this Act that plaintiff sought to serve as a representative party in the last three years. Milberg Weiss included the certification of Glenn Goerke, who is not willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the class unless he is “readily and easily available” and compensated for his time and all related expenses. The certification of Anthony Petropulos states, “I would not like to participate as lead plaintiff in this action.” The City of Philadelphia’s certification fails to identify the specific actions under federal securities laws in which it has sought or has served as class representative during the past three years. Furthermore, the WMI Institutional Shareholder Group claims that the City of Philadelphia has been a representative plaintiff in so many actions that it is no longer entitled to the presumption of adequacy because under the PSLRA a plaintiff that has sought to serve or has served as a representative party in more than five class actions in the past three years is inadequate. Telxon, 808, 817-22; Weiss Declaration, Ex. E. Furthermore Milberg Weiss has submitted certifications from individuals who have purchased only a nominal number of shares of WMI stock or who have suffered minimal loss, e.g., John Adams, Según Adeseye, Gopal and Karun Abuja, Julian Arbus, Alex Arcega, Roberta Barbalace, William Cavanaugh, Douglas Gallwas, Lynn Greimann Hassebroek, Cynthia James, Keith Janson, Avril Johnson, David Lambert, Franklin Montgomery, William Mosely, Thomas Noyes, Joseph Stefans, and Anthony Wagner, IV. WMI Institutional Shareholder Group argues that even after the withdrawal of Ranier, Pennsylvania Trust, and Pacific Century, without including the institutions represented by Bernstein Litowitz, it is still the group with the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, since its incurred total losses amount to $76,603,032.33. Its members also satisfy the typicality and adequate representation requirements of Rule 23. Opposition to WMI Institutional Shareholder Group’s Motion Connecticut, as noted earlier, charges the WMI Institutional Group’s forty-eight unrelated inve