## Facts

- Investors brought a federal securities class action alleging misstatements or omissions by Milestone Scientific, Inc. in promoting a computer-controlled dental anesthetic device known as “The Wand.”
- In a prior ruling, the court appointed an investor group led by Robert M. Gintel as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
- The court initially allowed a multiple-firm lead-counsel structure but later required re-briefing on whether multiple lead counsel were necessary and consistent with PSLRA objectives.
- Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, one of the previously involved plaintiffs’ firms, moved to be appointed sole lead counsel.
- The motion presented a dispute over whether class representation should proceed under a single lead counsel or a co-lead/committee structure.

## Issues

1. In a PSLRA securities class action, should the court approve multiple lead counsel for an appointed lead plaintiff or designate one firm as sole lead counsel?
2. What weight should the court give to PSLRA goals of investor control, cost containment, and clear accountability in structuring plaintiffs’ leadership?

## Decision

- The court granted Abbey, Gardy’s application to be appointed sole lead counsel.
- The court found the record did not justify maintaining multiple lead counsel.
- The court determined that appointing a single lead counsel better served the class and better matched PSLRA case-management aims.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff selects and supervises lead counsel, subject to court approval; the structure should support meaningful investor control rather than attorney-driven litigation.
- Courts may reject multi-firm leadership arrangements when they risk duplicative work, increased fees, and diluted responsibility without a concrete, case-specific need.
- A single lead counsel structure can improve efficiency, clarify accountability, simplify communication with the lead plaintiff, and facilitate judicial oversight.
- District courts retain discretion under the PSLRA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to structure class leadership to ensure adequate representation and economical prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court exercised its PSLRA and Rule 23 supervisory authority to replace a multi-firm leadership arrangement with a single firm, concluding that Abbey, Gardy could adequately prosecute the case and that sole lead counsel best advanced efficiency, accountability, and lead-plaintiff control.


In re Milestone Sci. Sec. Litig., 187 F.R.D. 165 (D.N.J. 1999)