Securities Regulation Daily Wrap Up, FRAUD AND MANIPULATION—S.D.N.Y.: Indiana pension fund takes lead in BellRing class action despite missing filing deadline, (Apr 14, 2026)

By Kristin J. Angelino, J.D.

The court found that the six-minute delay caused by “technical failures” was excusable and the fund otherwise satisfied lead plaintiff requirements. Lead counsel was also appointed.

The federal district judge presiding over a putative class action against BellRing Brands, Inc. and certain executives appointed Indiana Public Retirement System (IPRS) as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. The court found that the late filing of the lead plaintiff motion, which Robbins Geller attributed to technical failures on the court’s ECF filing platform, was excusable since (1) it was accompanied by an affidavit from counsel attesting to the reason for the delay, which reason was corroborated by the court’s staff, and (2) the “de minimis” delay did not prejudice other parties. In addition, IPRS had the largest estimated loss and it otherwise met the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Denha v. BellRing Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00575 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2026)).

BellRing Brands markets and sells “convenient nutrition” products, including ready-to-drink protein shakes and powders. The putative class action alleged that BellRing and certain of its executives failed to disclose material information to investors regarding the company’s sales during the class period. IPRS and The Trustees of the IWA-Forest Industry Pension (IWA-Forest) filed separate motions to serve as lead plaintiff. IWA-Forest’s motion was timely filed.

Discretion to excuse delays. IPRS filed its lead plaintiff motion six minutes after the statutorily required deadline of midnight on March 23, 2026. IPRS stated that it began the filing process at approximately 11:28pm on March 23, but, due to technical failures on the court’s ECF filing platform, it was not able to successfully upload the documents until 12:06am on March 24, 2026. IWA-Forest argued that IPRS’s late filing is dispositive and therefore they should be appointed lead plaintiff.

After reading the parties’ written submissions and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that IPRS followed all of the SDNY’s rules regarding a filing that is prevented by technical failure. The court noted that the Second Circuit has held that the district courts have discretion to excuse ECF delays, particularly when the reason for the delay is corroborated by sworn statements and the late filing did not prejudice other parties.

Here, the court held that IPRS followed SDNY rules by attaching an affidavit explaining how the service interruption prevented the timely filing of their motion. According to the affidavit, after a Robbins Geller paralegal received an error message on the ECF filing portal, other individuals at the firm then attempted to access the ECF system from multiple locations, devices and browsers and all received error messages. However, the firm continued their filing attempts until they were ultimately successful. When the court asked Robbins Geller why they initiated filing so close to the deadline, counsel said that “competing counsel typically wait until the last hours to file their motions in an effort to stave off competitors from making artificial adjustments to appear as more suitable as lead plaintiffs.” The court noted that IWA-Forest also waited until shortly before the deadline to file. The court also received confirmation from the court’s ECF expert that the filing platform had experienced “intermittent connectivity issues” on March 23.

Typicality and adequacy. The court noted that IWA-Forest agreed on the record that, assuming the court excused IPRS’s delay, IPRS was “presumptively the most adequate plaintiff in this action.” Also, the court noted that no competing plaintiff came forward with a larger financial interest than IPRS. In addition, IPRS’s claims appeared to be typical of the class, and it made a prima facie showing of adequacy since there were no facts to suggest that IPRS’s interests would not be aligned with those of the class.

Counsel. The court held that Robbins Geller was well qualified to serve as lead counsel since it had extensive experience with this type of litigation. However, the court said its appointment was conditioned on Robbins Geller handling the case without retaining other firms, except in special circumstances for which the firm must seek court approval.

The case is No. 1:26-cv-00575.

Judge: Rakoff, J.

Attorneys: Ross Mitchell Shikowitz (Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP) for Danil Denha. Evan Jay Kaufman (Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP) for Indiana Public Retirement System. Peter Eric Kazanoff (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP) for BellRing Brands, Inc., Darcy Horn Davenport and Paul Rode.

Companies: Indiana Public Retirement System; BellRing Brands, Inc.

LitigationEnforcement: FedTracker Securities FraudManipulation NewYorkNews