Under the PSLRA, the district court must select the plaintiff (and attorney) to represent the plaintiff investor class.  At step one notice of the action is posted so class members can move to be named the representative plaintiff.  Groups of class members may join to pool their purchases and make a joint bid to be the representative plaintiffs.  At step two, the district court chooses the most appropriate plaintiff, according to a presumption that it is the member or group of members with the largest financial interest that  has made a prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality.  At step three, competing movants can rebut the presumption by showing that the presumptive lead plaintiff will not fairly or adequately represent the class.  Here, the district court disqualifying petitioners (who as a group held the largest financial interest) because they had not demonstrated that they would work together, in part because they hadn’t explained how they’d found each other.  This decision holds that ability to work together was a matter of adequacy that could only be raised at step three, and on which the competing movants would bear the burden of proof.