United States District Judge Robert Keeton (D. Mass.) asked "any interested member of the Bar of this Court" for comments on six questions he has raised concerning the constitutionality of the "lead plaintiff" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Congress enacted the lead plaintiff provisions to encourage institutional investors with a large stake in securities litigation to represent the class and exercise effective management of plaintiffs' lawyers. Congress acted out of concern that a named class representative with a minimal financial stake in the outcome might be acting as an instrument of class action plaintiffs attorneys who had recruited that individual. Kai Chan, a purchaser of common stock in PRI Automation, Inc., brought a class action suit against PRI and various directors and officers alleging that PRI prepared and disseminated false and misleading information in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. There are five related actions currently pending before Judge Keeton and more than one plaintiff has sought to be named "lead plaintiff." The provisions of the PSLRA that are of concern to Judge Keeton provide for the appointment of the lead plaintiff in securities class actions. Under lead plaintiff provisions, a plaintiff filing a new putative class action must "cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class" of the pending action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 (a) (3) (A) (i). The notice must advise the class that "any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class." Id. Within 90 days after the notice is published, the court "shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of the class members." Id. § 78u-4-(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA creates a rebuttable presumption that the "most adequate plaintiff . . .  is the person or group of persons" who has sought the role, otherwise meets the requirements of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and "in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class." NELF contended that none of these provisions are constitutionally infirm. On June 15, 2001, Judge Keeton ruled that the provision requiring the court to appoint a lead plaintiff within 90 days violated the separation of powers doctrine, finding that Congress did not have authority to place a deadline on the exercise of judicial discretion.