barnow and associates, p.c. the coffman law firm … › media › 2389177 › 003243...jeremiah...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BEN BARNOW 205 W. Randolph St., Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312/621-2000 [email protected] FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP JEREMIAH FREI-PEARSON 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: 914/298-3281 [email protected] Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel

THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM RICHARD L. COFFMAN 505 Orleans St., 5th Floor Beaumont, TX 77701 Tel: 409/833-7700 [email protected] GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP MARC L. GODINO 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310/201-9150 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN RE ZAPPOS SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION --------------------------------------------- THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL ACTIONS

MDL No. 2357 Case No. 3:12-CV-00325-RJC-VPC

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Case 3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-CBC Document 331 Filed 09/12/19 of 28

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiffs

Theresa Stevens, Dahlia Bonzagni (also known as Dahlia Habashy), Patti Hasner, Shari Simon,

Stephanie Preira (also known as Stephanie Huppert), Katharine Vorhoff, Denise Relethford,

Robert Ree, and Emily Braxton (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), move this Honorable Court for entry

of an Order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the

“Settlement”) attached hereto as Exhibit 1; (2) directing notice of the Settlement to the Settlement

Class in accordance with the methods for dissemination set forth in the Settlement and the Notice

Program; (3) appointing KCC Class Action Services LLC as Settlement Administrator; (4)

conditionally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (5) appointing Plaintiffs

as Class Representatives; (6) appointing Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., Richard L.

Coffman of the Coffman Law Firm, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-

Pearson & Garber, LLP, and Marc L. Godino of Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP, as Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel; and (7) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a final

order approving the Settlement and Plaintiffs’ request for award of attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses,

and class representative service awards.

As explained below, the Settlement represents an excellent result for the Settlement Class

and readily satisfies the requisite preliminary approval standard of within the range of possible

approval as a fair, reasonable, and adequate. Additionally, conditional certification of the

Settlement Class for settlement purposes is appropriate, and the Notice provided for by the

Settlement and Notice Program constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances.


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: September 12, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BEN BARNOW (pro hac vice) ERICH P. SCHORK (pro hac vice) By: _____/s Ben Barnow____________ BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: 312/621-2000 312/641-5504 (fax) [email protected] [email protected]

THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM RICHARD L. COFFMAN (pro hac vice) First City Building 505 Orleans St., 5th Floor Beaumont, TX 77701 Tel: 409/833-7700 866/835-8250 (fax) [email protected] FINKLESTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PERASON & GARBER, LLP JEREMIAH FREI-PEARSON (pro hac vice) 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: 914-298-3281 914/824-1561 (fax) [email protected] GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP MARC L. GODINO (pro hac vice) 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310/201-9150 310/432-1495 (fax) [email protected] Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

O’MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. DAVID C. O’MARA 311 E. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Tel: 775/323-1321 [email protected] BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 [email protected] Other Plaintiffs’ Counsel


i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2

I. Nature of the Litigation ..........................................................................................................2 II. Procedural History .................................................................................................................2 III. Summary of the Settlement ..................................................................................................4

A. The Settlement Class .......................................................................................................4 B. Settlement Benefits .........................................................................................................5

1. Discount Codes ..........................................................................................................5 2. The Costs of Notice and Settlement Administration ................................................5 3. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses .......................................................................6

4. Class Representative Service Awards ........................................................................6

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6

I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is Warranted ...........................................................6

A. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Future Litigation Favors Preliminary Approval .........................................................................................8

B. The Benefits Offered by the Settlement Are Significant ...............................................9 C. The Extent of Discovery and the Stage of the

Proceedings Informed the Settlement and Support its Approval .................................10 D. Experienced Counsel Recommend Approval of the Settlement ..................................10 E. The Settlement Is the Product of Arm’s Length Negotiations .....................................10

II. The Settlement Class Is Likely to be Certified for Settlement Purposes ............................11

A. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied .............................................................11

1. Numerosity ...............................................................................................................11 2. Commonality ............................................................................................................11 3. Typicality .................................................................................................................12 4. Adequacy .................................................................................................................12


ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied ........................................................13

1. Predominance ...........................................................................................................13 2. Superiority................................................................................................................14

III. The Notice Plan Should Be Approved ...............................................................................14

A. Scope of Notice .............................................................................................................15 B. Contents of Notice .........................................................................................................16

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................17


iii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ....................................................................................................................14 Carnegie v. Household Int’l Inc., 376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................13 Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F. Supp. 3d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ....................................................................................9, 10 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) ....................................................................................................................15 Eisen v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 11-CV-09405, 2014 WL 439006 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) ..................................................7 Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................................12, 13 Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 10-CV-2471, 2014 WL 888665 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) .....................................................8 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ..............................................................................................12, 13 In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).............................................................................................9 In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ......................................6, 7 In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................................10 In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., No. 07-CV-0118, 2009 WL 995864 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009) ....................................................7 In re Sunrise Sec. Litig., 131 F.R.D. 450 (E.D. Pa. 1990) ....................................................................................................8 In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................................7 Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................13 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ....................................................................................................................15


iv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ................................................................................................10 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................................7 Peters v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 966 F.2d 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................14, 15 Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................11 Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................10 Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................7 Twigg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................15 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) ....................................................................................................................11 Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982)............................................................................................................8 Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ..................................................................................................................11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ............................................................................................................11, 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ..................................................................................................................12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ............................................................................................................12, 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ...........................................................................................................13, 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ......................................................................................................15, 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) ........................................................................................................11


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Plaintiffs Dahlia Habashy (also known as Dahlia Bonzagni), Emily E. Braxton, Patti

Hasner, Stephanie Preira (also known as Stephanie Huppert), Robert Ree, Denise Relethford, Shari

Simon, Theresa D. Stevens, and Katharine Vorhoff (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on

behalf of the Settlement Class (as defined in the Settlement Agreement and stated below),1 by and

through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities

in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

INTRODUCTION

After years of hard-fought litigation and several rounds of protracted settlement

negotiations, the Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) attached hereto

as Exhibit 1. Under the Settlement, all Settlement Class Members will be emailed a Discount Code

usable for a 10% discount on goods purchased from Zappos.com or the Zappos.com mobile app.

The single-use Discount Code may be used to purchase multiple items and premium products, is

subject to no caps on the number or value of goods purchased, and is transferable via gift or sale.

Discount Codes will also usable the moment they are received—that is, prior to final approval—

allowing Settlement Class Members to receive the benefits of the Settlement far sooner than is

generally the case with class action settlements.

As shown herein, the Settlement is an excellent result for the Settlement Class, especially

considering the significant risks, delay, and expense of continuing to litigate this matter.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Honorable Court for entry of an order: (1) granting

preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) directing notice of the Settlement to the Settlement

Class in accordance with the methods for dissemination set forth in the Settlement and the Notice

Plan; (3) appointing KCC Class Action Services LLC (“KCC”) as Settlement Administrator; (4)

conditionally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (5) appointing Plaintiffs

as Class Representatives; (6) appointing Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., Richard L.

1 The definitions contained in the Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Coffman of the Coffman Law Firm, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-

Pearson & Garber, LLP, and Marc L. Godino of Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP, as Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel; and (7) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a final

order approving the Settlement and Plaintiffs’ request for award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and

expenses, and Class Representative service awards.

BACKGROUND

I. Nature of the Litigation

On January 16, 2012, Zappos announced that a criminal or group of criminals had gained

unauthorized access to its network and the personal information of approximately 24 million of its

customers, including their names, email addresses, billing and shipping addresses, the last four

digits of their credit card numbers, and their cryptographically scrambled passwords (the “Data

Breach”).

II. Procedural History

Following announcement of the Data Breach, nine class action complaints asserting

various claims against Zappos were filed in federal courts located in Florida, Kentucky,

Massachusetts, and Nevada.2 On June 14, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

entered an order transferring each of the related actions to this Court for coordinated or

consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. ECF 1. Later that same day, Zappos

moved to compel arbitration of all claims and to stay the litigation. ECF 3. After briefing and a

hearing on the matter, the Court denied Zappos’s motion. ECF 21.

In early November 2012, two groups of plaintiffs in the MDL, the Kentucky/California

Plaintiffs and the Priera Plaintiffs, filed Consolidated Class Action Complaints. ECF 58, 59. In

2 Richards v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 6:12-00212 (M.D. Fla.), St. Lawrence v. Zappos.com, Inc., C.A. No. 0:12-60133 (S.D. Fla.), Stevens v. Amazon.com, Inc., NO. 3:12-CV-00032 (W.D. Ky.), Penson v. Amazon.com, Inc., NO. 3:12-CV-00036 (W.D. Ky.), Elliot v. Amazon.com, Inc., NO. 3:12-CV-00037(W.D. Ky.), Habashy v. Amazon.com, Inc., 1:12-CV-10145 (D. Mass.), Priera v. Zappos.com, Inc., NO. 2:12-C-00182 (D. Nev.), Simon v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00232 (D. Nev.), Ree v. Amazon.com, Inc., dba Zappos.com, No. 3:12-CV-00072 (D. Nev.). On July 16, 2012, an additional related action, Nobles v. Zappos.com, Inc., initially filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, was transferred into this MDL.


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

response, Zappos moved to dismiss both complaints. ECF 62. On September 9, 2013, the Court

entered an order recognizing the plaintiffs’ Article III standing to assert their claims and granting

in part and denying in part Zappos’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF 114.

On October 7, 2013, the Priera Plaintiffs and the Kentucky/California Plaintiffs filed

Second Amended Consolidated Complaints. ECF 118–29. Zappos responded by moving to

dismiss the complaints and to strike the plaintiffs’ prayers for punitive damages and restitution.

ECF 124.

On June 18, 2014, the Parties stipulated to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of a

July 30, 2014 mediation before the Honorable Edward A. Infante (Ret.) of JAMS. ECF 192. After

that session ended, negotiations between the Parties continued for months with the assistance of

Judge Infante (Ret.). Additional mediation sessions occurred on November 12, 2014, and

November 21, 2014. Despite these extensive efforts, the Parties were unable to reach agreement

on all terms of a settlement.

After negotiations broke down, Zappos re-filed its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Consolidated Complaints and its motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations. ECF

217, 219. On June 1, 2015, the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue

their claims and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with leave to amend to allege instances of actual

identity theft or fraud. ECF 235.

On September 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Consolidated Class Action

Complaint (“TAC”). ECF 245. The TAC alleged claims against Zappos on behalf of fourteen

named plaintiffs, including two individuals who alleged having suffered actual identity theft or

fraud as a result of the Data Breach. ECF 245. Zappos responded by moving to dismiss the TAC

and to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations. ECF 254, 255. On May 6, 2016, the Court dismissed

all plaintiffs not alleging identity theft or identity fraud for lack of standing, held that the two

plaintiffs alleging identity theft or fraud had standing to bring their claims, granted in part and

denied in part Zappos’s motion to dismiss such plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim for

relief, and granted Zappos’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations. ECF 280. The Court


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

substantially denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the May 6, 2016 Order on August

29, 2019. ECF 289.

On September 12, 2016, to enable plaintiffs to appeal the Court’s rulings on Article III

Standing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Parties stipulated to the

voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims in the litigation. ECF 288. The Court

granted the Parties’ stipulation the next day. ECF 289.

After full briefing and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized

Plaintiffs’ Article III Standing to assert their claims against Zappos relating to the Data Breach,

reversing the Court’s May 6, 2016 Order. ECF 298, 301. On July 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals granted Zappos’s request to stay issuance of its mandate until final disposition of

Zappos’s petition for writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States. ECF 308. On

March 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Zappos’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Following

entry of the mandate, the Parties engaged in renewed settlement discussions. The Settlement was

reached as a result of such discussions.

Discovery in this action was lengthy and, at times, contested. Plaintiffs served and

responded to written discovery and reviewed more than 160,000 pages of documents produced by

Zappos. After meeting and conferring with counsel for Zappos, Plaintiffs’ counsel also filed three

motions to compel Zappos to produce materials.

III. Summary of the Settlement

A. The Settlement Class

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Parties agreed to conditional certification of the

following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only:

All natural persons or legal entities who had a Zappos.com account at any time on or prior to January 15, 2012, and for whom Zappos had an email address for the account in its records at that time (the “Settlement Class”).

SA ¶ II.32. The Settlement Class excludes the following: (a) individuals who are or were during

the Class Period officers or directors of Zappos or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates; (b) any

justice, judge, magistrate judge or law clerk of the Court, the United States Court of Appeals for


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court; and (c) all governmental entities. SA ¶

II.A.32.

B. Settlement Benefits

In summary, the Settlement provides the following benefits:

1. Discount Codes

Settlement Class Members will be emailed a Discount Code for 10% off a future online

purchase of goods (exclusive of shipping costs and taxes) on Zappos.com or the Zappos.com app.

SA ¶ II.A.1. The Discount Code shall be usable for a single order that may include multiple items

or premium products. SA ¶ III.C.2. There is no restriction on the total dollar amount of an order.

SA ¶ III.C.2. For price-reduced or sale goods, the ten percent (10%) discount will be calculated

against the lowest price (i.e., the reduced or sale price) and not the original list price. SA ¶ III.C.2.

The Discount Code may not be used for gift cards, previous purchases, shipping costs, or taxes.

SA ¶ III.C.2. A Settlement Class Member may transfer a Discount Code via gift or sale to a

Transferee who may use the code for personal use, but the Transferee is prohibited from further

transferring the Discount Code and no Transferee may obtain more than five Discount Codes from

Settlement Class Members. SA ¶ III.C.6.

Settlement Class Members have until the later of 11:59 p.m. PT on December 31, 2019, or

sixty (60) days after distribution to redeem the Discount Codes. SA ¶ III.C.5. If, within thirty (30)

days of the Discount Code’s expiration, a Settlement Class Member with an expired Discount

Code presents reasonable proof in writing to the Settlement Administrator that he, she, or it was

not able to use the Discount Code by reason of hospitalization, serious illness, or military service,

a Substitute Code will be provided to the Settlement Class Member. SA ¶ III.C.7. Substitute Codes

are not transferable and will be valid for sixty (60) days following the email transmission of the

Substitute Code to the Settlement Class Member. SA ¶ III.C.7.

2. The Costs of Notice and Settlement Administration

Zappos shall be responsible for paying all costs of Notice and Settlement Administration.

SA ¶ III.D. Using email address information provided by Zappos, the Settlement Administrator


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

will email Settlement Class Members direct notice of the Settlement. SA ¶ III.E.1. The Settlement

Administrator will also establish a Settlement website to provide Settlement Class Members with

information regarding the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the Settlement, and important

deadlines relating to the Settlement. SA ¶ III.E.2. The Settlement website will allow Settlement

Class Members to access and view important documents relating to the Settlement, including the

Settlement Agreement, Email Notice, Long-Form Notice, preliminary approval order, final

approval order, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and Plaintiffs’

motion for final approval of the Settlement and award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and

Class Representative service awards. SA ¶ III.E.2.

3. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses

The Parties did not discuss Plaintiffs’ counsels’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses until

after the substantive elements of the Settlement were agreed upon. SA ¶ III.G. The amount of any

award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is intended to be considered by the Court separately

from the Court’s consideration of the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement.

SA ¶ III.G. Under the Settlement, Zappos has agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’ request for an award

of $1,597,500 for the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in furtherance of the litigation,

subject to Court approval. SA ¶ III.G.

4. Class Representative Service Awards

Zappos also agreed to pay a service award of $2,500 to each Class Representative ($22,500

total), subject to Court approval. SA ¶ III.G.

ARGUMENT

I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is Warranted

Courts favor settlement because settlements benefit litigants by saving them the expense

and uncertainties of trial, and also benefit the judicial system by minimizing devotion of public

resources to disputes the parties themselves can resolve in a mutually agreeable fashion. See In re

Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005).

For these reasons, compromise is particularly favored in complex class actions. See Eisen v.


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-09405-CAS-FFMx, 2014 WL 439006, at *3 (C.D. Cal.

Jan. 30, 2014).

The Ninth Circuit has articulated six factors to use in evaluating the fairness of a class

action settlement: (1) the strength of plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely

duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4)

the consideration offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the

proceedings; and (6) the experience and views of counsel. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959

(9th Cir. 2003). “The relative degree of importance to be attached to any particular factor will

depend on the unique circumstances of each case.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of

San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982).

“Because class members will subsequently receive notice and have an opportunity to be

heard,” the Court “need not review the settlement in detail at this juncture.” In re M.L. Stern

Overtime Litig., No. 07-CV-0118-BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009).

“[I]nstead, preliminary approval is appropriate so long as the proposed settlement falls ‘within the

range of possible judicial approval’” Id. at *9–10 (quoting Newberg on Class Actions, §11.25 (4th

ed. 2002)).

To determine whether a proposed settlement is within the range of possible approval, the

Court must also ensure it is “not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the

negotiating parties.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. To preliminarily assess the

reasonableness of the Settlement, the Court should review both the substance of the deal and the

process used to arrive at the Settlement. See In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078,

1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

As shown below, the Settlement is well within the range of possible approval as a fair,

reasonable, and adequate, and should be preliminarily approved. All of the relevant factors set

forth by the Ninth Circuit for evaluating the fairness of a settlement at the final approval stage

weigh in favor of preliminary approval, and there can be no doubt that the Settlement was reached

in a procedurally fair manner.


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Complexity, and Likely Duration

of Future Litigation Favors Preliminary Approval

“The court shall consider the vagaries of the litigation and compare the significance of

immediate recovery by way of compromise to the mere possibility of relief in the future, after

protracted and expensive litigation. In this respect, it has been held proper to take the bird in hand

instead of a prospective flock in the bush.” Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 10-CV-WQH

BGS, 2014 WL 888665, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) (citations and quotations omitted). “There

are weighty justifications, such as the reduction of litigation and related expenses, for the general

policy favoring the settlement of litigation.” Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir.

1982); see also In re Sunrise Sec. Litig., 131 F.R.D. 450, 455 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (approving a class

action settlement because, in part, the settlement “will alleviate . . . the extraordinary complexity,

expense and likely duration of this litigation”).

The risks of continued litigation weighed against the significant and immediate benefits

provided for by the Settlement support its approval. Plaintiffs and proposed Co-Lead Settlement

Class Counsel believe the claims asserted in the litigation have merit. They would not have fought

so hard to advance their claims if it were otherwise. But they also recognize the substantial risks

involved in continuing this litigation. Zappos has aggressively maintained its position regarding

class certification, liability, and damages—it believes a litigation class would not be certified, that

it would prevail on liability, and that Plaintiffs would be unable to prove damages. Zappos has also

demonstrated it has the resources and willingness to remain steadfast in its position until it exhausts

all available avenues and procedures.

As experienced data breach class action attorneys, Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class

Counsel recognize that establishing class-wide liability in a data breach case is generally an uphill

battle. They also recognize the difficulties in achieving a result better than that provided by the

Settlement.

Prosecuting this litigation through trial and appeal would be lengthy, complex, and costly

to all parties. See, e.g., In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 174


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (recognizing that “[m]ost class actions are inherently complex and settlement

avoids the costs, delays, and multitude of other problems associated with them”). Continued

proceedings necessary to litigate this matter to final judgment would likely include additional

discovery and depositions, briefing on class certification, pretrial motions, a trial, post-trial motion

practice, judgment, and potential appeals.

The Settlement, in contrast, delivers a real, timely, and substantial remedy to Settlement

Class Members without the risks and delay inherent in further litigation. Thus, this factor favors

preliminary approval of the Settlement.

B. The Benefits Offered by the Settlement Are Significant

“The very essence of a settlement is compromise, a yielding of absolutes and an

abandoning of highest hopes.” Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F. Supp. 3d 877, 889 (C.D. Cal.

2016). The Settlement is an excellent result for the Settlement Class, especially considering the

risks, delay, and expense of further litigation.

Under the Settlement, millions of Settlement Class Members will be emailed a Discount

Code usable for 10% off the price of goods purchased from Zappos.com or the Zappos.com app.

Discount Codes are transferable via gift or sale and can be used to purchase multiple and premium

goods as part of a single order (subject to no cap on the number or dollar value of the goods

purchased). Zappos will also pay all costs of notice and settlement administration and up to

$1,620,000 for Plaintiffs’ counsels’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and Class Representative

service awards, as approved by the Court. These significant benefits support preliminary approval

of the Settlement.

C. The Extent of Discovery and the Stage of the Proceedings Informed the Settlement

and Support its Approval

“A settlement following sufficient discovery and genuine arm’s length negotiation is

presumed fair.” Whirlpool, 2016 WL 5922456, at *6 (quoting Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v.

DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004)).


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Settlement was reached after years of hard-fought litigation and extensive discovery.

Prior to entering into the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel received Zappos’s initial disclosures and

written discovery responses, reviewed more than 160,000 pages of documents produced by

Zappos, and filed three motions to compel. The significant discovery and litigation occurring prior

to Settlement support preliminary approval of the Settlement. See In re LinkedIn User Privacy

Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 588 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

D. Experienced Counsel Recommend Approval of the Settlement

“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely

acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation . . . because parties represented by competent

counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s

expected outcome in the litigation.” Whirlpool, 2016 WL 5922456, at *7 (quoting Nat’l Rural

Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 528)); see also Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 697

(9th Cir. 2009) (“Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to

produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s outcome in litigation.”).

The Settlement is supported by experienced and well-qualified counsel. Proposed Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsels’ resumes are attached as Exhibits A–D to the Declaration of Ben

Barnow, filed herewith as Exhibit 2. Zappos is similarly well-represented. Proposed Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsels’ and Zappos’s counsel support the Settlement and believe the

Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. This factor further supports preliminary approval

of the Settlement.

E. The Settlement Is the Product of Arm’s Length Negotiations

The Settlement is the product of extensive, arm’s length negotiations conducted by

experienced counsel. As noted above, the Parties discussed potential resolution on several

occasions. The Parties engaged in months of intensive negotiations between July and November

2014 assisted by Judge Infante (Ret.), including three mediation sessions. After those discussions

did not result in an agreement, the Parties continued to aggressively litigate the matter—a process

that included briefing and arguing an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and briefing


11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. During the summer of

2019, the Parties engaged in renewed negotiations resulting in the Settlement. This factor supports

approval of the Settlement.

II. The Settlement Class Is Likely to be Certified for Settlement Purposes

At the preliminary approval stage, the Court must address whether it “will likely be able

to . . . certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(ii).

“The ultimate decision to certify the class for purposes of settlement cannot be made until the

hearing on final approval of the proposed settlement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s

notes to 2018 amendments. Because the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied, the

Settlement Class is likely to be certified for settlement purposes at the final approval stage and

should be conditionally certified.

A. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied

1. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Joinder is generally considered impracticable when a class

includes forty or more individuals. Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010). The

Settlement Class includes millions of individuals and entities, so joinder of all members would be

impracticable. This requirement is readily satisfied.

2. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires the existence of a question of law or fact that is common to all class

members and capable of class-wide resolution, the determination of which is central to the validity

of all Settlement Class Members’ claims. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350

(2011). “All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the [commonality

requirement]. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient,

as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class.”

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998).


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Several questions of law and fact common to all Settlement Class Members exist in this

litigation, including: whether Zappos failed to adopt and maintain reasonable and industry-

standard security measures to protect and secure Settlement Class Members’ personally

identifiable information (“PII”), whether Zappos omitted material information regarding the

security of Zappos.com, whether Zappos misrepresented that it used reasonable measures to

protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the PII collected from its customers, whether

Settlement Class members were damaged as a result of criminals accessing their PII, and whether

Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are entitled to actual, statutory, and other forms

of damages and monetary relief.

As such, Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement is satisfied.

3. Typicality

The focus of Rule 23(a)(3)’s typicality requirement “is whether other members have the

same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named

plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.”

Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other Settlement Class Members.

Plaintiffs’ and the other Settlement Class Members’ claims and injuries arise from substantially

the same conduct, and Plaintiffs advance the same claims and legal theories on behalf of

themselves and the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs also are not aware of any defenses available to

Zappos that would be unique to Plaintiffs. Thus, the typicality requirement is satisfied.

4. Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that representative plaintiffs and class counsel adequately represent

the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). When analyzing adequacy, courts ask: “(1) do

the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and

(2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the

class?” Evon, 688 F.3d at 1031 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020)).


13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with, and do not conflict with, the interests of the Settlement

Class. Plaintiffs have actively participated in the litigation, including providing information for the

complaints, responding to written discovery, and approving the Settlement. Additionally, proposed

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have significant experience prosecuting complex class actions,

such as this matter, and are well-qualified to represent the interests of the Settlement Class. The

resumes of proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel are attached as Exhibits A–D to the

Declaration of Ben Barnow filed as Exhibit 2 herewith. As demonstrated by their efforts in this

litigation to date, proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have and will continue to

vigorously prosecute this matter on behalf of the Settlement Class. The adequacy requirement is

satisfied.

B. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied

1. Predominance

Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance element requires that “questions of law or fact common to

class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry focuses on whether a proposed class is “sufficiently

cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,

617 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2010). “When common questions present a significant aspect of the

case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear

justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis.” Local

Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162

(9th Cir. 2001).

As noted above, several questions of law and fact common to all members of the Settlement

Class exist in this litigation. These common questions predominate over any potential questions

affecting only individual Settlement Class Members. Thus, the predominance element is satisfied.


14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) requires a class action to be “superior to other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of the controversy,” and sets forth the following factors:

(A) the class members’ interest in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The manageability concerns present when a court certifies a class for

litigation purposes are not present when a class is certified for settlement purposes, because the

case is not to be tried. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 621 (1997). “[A] class action

has to be unwieldy indeed before it can be pronounced an inferior alternative—no matter how

massive the fraud or other wrongdoing that will go unpunished if class treatment is denied—to no

litigation at all.” Carnegie v. Household Int’l Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2004).

A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication

of this controversy. The damages, harm, and other detriment suffered by Settlement Class

Members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to

individually litigate their claims against Zappos, making it impracticable for Settlement Class

Members to individually bring actions against Zappos. Even if Settlement Class Members could

afford individual litigation, the court system should not be required to bear the burden and expense

of such inefficiency. Individualized litigation would also create the potential for inconsistent or

contradictory judgments and increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By

contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale,

and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Thus, the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied

and certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only is appropriate.

III. The Notice Program Should Be Approved

Notice serves to “afford members of the class due process which, in the context of the Rule

23(b)(3) class action, guarantees them the opportunity to be excluded from the class action and not

be bound by any subsequent judgment.” Peters v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 966 F.2d 1483,


15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1486 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173–74 (1974)). When

directing notice to a class proposed to be certified for settlement purposes only, the Court must

order “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances” by “United States mail,

electronic means, or other appropriate means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The best practicable

notice is that which is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested

parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

Notice must fairly describe the litigation and the proposed settlement and its legal

significance. See, e.g., Twigg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 1998))

(“[The notice] must also contain an adequate description of the proceedings written in objective,

neutral terms, that, insofar as possible, may be understood by the average absentee class member”).

Whether to approve a notice plan is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, because

he is exposed to the litigants, their strategies, positions, and proof. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

The Parties request appointment of KCC as Settlement Administrator. KCC is a nationally

recognized class action notice and settlement administration firm and is well-qualified to serve as

the Settlement Administrator in this matter. KCC’s experience is attached as Exhibit 1 to the

Declaration of Tricia Solorzano filed herewith as Exhibit 3.

A. The Scope of Notice

Under the Settlement, notice will be accomplished by sending direct email notice to

Settlement Class Members and establishing an informational website dedicated to the Settlement

with an easy-to-remember domain name. SA ¶ III.E. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

expressly envision providing notice via email when doing so constitutes “the best notice

practicable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) advisory committee’s note to

2018 amendment (recognizing that under certain circumstances providing notice via email is the

“most promising” delivery mechanism). Taking into consideration Zappos’s status as an online

retailer, the fact that Settlement Class Members previously provided Zappos with an email address,

the nature of relief provided for by the Settlement, the size of the Settlement Class, and the fact


16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that the Discount Codes will be usable immediately upon receipt, direct notice via email is the best

means of efficiently providing notice to the Settlement Class.

B. Contents of Notice

The Notice documents, attached as Exhibits A and B to the Settlement, are designed to

provide information about the Settlement, along with clear, concise, and easily understood

information about Settlement Class Members’ legal rights. The Notice documents collectively

include a fair summary of the Parties’ respective litigation positions, the general terms of the

Settlement, instructions on how to object or opt-out of the Settlement, and the date, time, and place

of the Final Fairness Hearing—all the information required by Rule 23 and the Manual for

Complex Litigation, Fourth.

The Email Notice contains a general description of the litigation and summarizes the

Settlement benefits, including how to use or transfer a Discount Code. SA Ex. A. The Email Notice

also (i) provides the date, time, and location of the Final Fairness Hearing scheduled by the Court,

(ii) states that Settlement Class Members have the right to appear at the hearing and to be

represented by counsel of their choice (at their own expense), (iii) states the deadline for Settlement

Class Members to opt out of or object to the Settlement, (iv) directs Settlement Class Members to

the Settlement website for more information regarding how to opt out of or object to the

Settlement, and (v) explains that unless the Settlement Class Member timely opt outs of the

Settlement, they will release any claims against Zappos and its related parties relating to the Data

Breach. See id.

The Settlement website will contain background information on the case and list important

settlement-related deadlines. SA ¶ III.E.2. The Settlement Administrator will post the Email

Notice, Long-Form Notice, Settlement Agreement, preliminary approval order, final approval

order, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ motion for final

approval of the Settlement and award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and Class

Representative service awards on the Settlement website. SA ¶ III.E.2.


17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Long-Form Notice is clear, precise, and informative. SA Ex. B. It begins with a

summary page providing an overview of the litigation and Settlement and a table highlighting key

options available to Settlement Class Members. See id. The Notices are designed to provide the

information Settlement Class Members need to make an informed decision about their

participation in the Settlement. The Notices contain information that a reasonable person would

consider material in making an informed, intelligent decision of whether to opt out of or remain a

member of the Settlement Class and be bound by a final judgment. Altogether, the Notices fairly

apprise Settlement Class Members of the terms of the Settlement and the options that are open to

them in connection with the proceedings.

The Notice Program readily satisfies the “best practicable” standard and should be

approved.

CONCLUSION

As the above demonstrates, the Settlement readily meets the standard for preliminary

approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, by and

through counsel, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an order:

a) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement;

b) conditionally certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only;

c) appointing Theresa Stevens, Dahlia Bonzagn (also known as Dahlia Habashy), Patti

Hasner, Shari Simon, Stephanie Preira (also known as Stephanie Huppert), Katharine

Vorhoff, Denise Relethford, Robert Ree, and Emily Braxton as Class Representatives;

d) appointing Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., Richard L. Coffman of the

Coffman Law Firm, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &

Garber, LLP, and Marc L. Godino of Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP, as Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel;

e) appointing KCC as Settlement Administrator, approving Notice to the Settlement Class

and the methods for dissemination of Notice as set forth in the Settlement, and directing

that Notice be provided in accordance with the Notice Program;

f) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a final order approving the

Settlement and Plaintiffs’ request for awards of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and

Class Representative service awards;


18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g) ordering a stay of all proceedings until the Court enters a final decision on the Settlement;

and

h) granting any other or additional relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

Dated: September 12, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BEN BARNOW (pro hac vice) ERICH P. SCHORK (pro hac vice) By: _____/s Ben Barnow____________ BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: 312/621-2000 [email protected] [email protected]

THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM RICHARD L. COFFMAN (pro hac vice) First City Building 505 Orleans St., 5th Floor Beaumont, TX 77701 Tel: 409/833-7700 [email protected] FINKLESTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PERASON & GARBER, LLP JEREMIAH FREI-PEARSON (pro hac vice) 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: 914-298-3281 [email protected] GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP MARC L. GODINO (pro hac vice) 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310/201-9150 [email protected] Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel


19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

O’MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. DAVID C. O’MARA 311 E. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Tel: 775/323-1321 [email protected] BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619/338-1100 [email protected] Other Plaintiffs’ Counsel


20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 12, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the

email addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and that I shall cause the foregoing

document to be mailed via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants

indicated on the Electronic Mail Notice List.

/s Ben Barnow__________________ BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 621-2000 (312) 641-5504 (fax) [email protected]


Exhibit 1

Case 3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-CBC Document 331-1 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 74

Exhibit 2


Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel


Exhibit A


BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES

a professional corporation ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Ben Barnow is nationally recognized for his experience in leading some of the

nation’s largest consumer class actions. In that capacity, he has successfully led the

prosecution of a number of large-scale class actions relating to consumer data

security breaches, consumer protection issues, and antitrust violations. He has been

appointed to and served in leadership positions in cases throughout the nation, in

both state and federal courts, including MDL proceedings. His efforts have delivered

resolutions in numerous significant cases, including cases against America Online,

DaimlerChrysler, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Shell Oil, Sony, TJX, and Toyota.

Ben Barnow graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1966 with a

Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration. He received his Juris Doctor from the

University of Michigan Law School in 1969. He is licensed to practice in the State of

Illinois and the State of New York. Mr. Barnow is also admitted to practice before

the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the

First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth Circuits, the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and

the Western District of Wisconsin. He is a member of the American Bar Association,

the American Association for Justice, the Illinois State Bar Association, and the

Chicago Bar Association. He has also served as a member of the Panel of

Arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association. He is listed in Martindale-

Hubbell with an AV rating.

During his over forty-year legal career, Ben Barnow has represented both

plaintiffs and defendants in many types of litigation and has engaged in significant

transactional work. He was General Counsel to one of the world’s largest public

relations agencies and presided as chairman of certain of its retirement trusts. Ben

Barnow was an Associate Professor at Northern Michigan University from 1969-

1971, where he taught business law and unfair competition. Mr. Barnow joined the

law firm of Herrick, McNeill, McElroy & Peregrine in July 1971, where he became a

partner in 1977.

As part of a series of articles by Law360 featuring notable plaintiff attorneys,

Ben Barnow was recognized as a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar, and Barnow and

Associates, P.C. “a plaintiffs’ class action outfit known for winning big-time

antitrust and data breach settlements.” Sindhu Sundar, Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar:

Ben Barnow, Law360 (Oct. 8, 2014), https://www.law360.com/articles/585655/titan-

of-the-plaintiffs-bar-ben-barnow (last visited June 3, 2019).


Selected Cases

Deceptive Trade Practices and Other Consumer Protection Cases

Warner v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead

Counsel in this litigation regarding claims of excessive frame rust to certain Toyota

vehicles, yielding a recent landmark settlement estimated at $3.4 billion. Under the

settlement, owners of 2005–2010 Toyota Tacoma, 2007–2008 Toyota Tundra, and

2005–2008 Toyota Sequoia vehicles are eligible for free frame inspections for a

period of twelve years from the date the vehicle was originally sold or leased, or one

year from the date of the Final Order and Judgment, whichever is longer. Vehicles

that exhibit excessive frame rust are eligible for a free frame replacement.

Rafofsky v. Nissan North America, Inc. Ben Barnow served as Class Counsel in this

litigation regarding the failure to timely deliver certain advertised infotainment

apps on 2014 Infiniti Q50s. Class Counsel achieved a settlement in which class

members could file claims for cash worth up to $85 or for vouchers to purchase of a

new Infiniti vehicle worth up to $1,250.

Palace v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. Ben Barnow was one of Co-Lead Class Counsel in

this litigation relating to the defendant’s sale of Neons containing allegedly

defective head gaskets. After several years of litigation, a settlement was granted

final approval, making up to $8.25 million available to Class members for

reimbursement of repair costs and other expenses.

Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement

Class Counsel in this action relating to allegations that the defendant unlawfully

re-sequenced debit card transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees. In this

capacity, he negotiated a settlement with Defendant’s counsel providing for the

establishment of a $9.5 million settlement fund and including substantial injunctive

relief, the present value of which Plaintiffs’ expert estimated to be approximately

$58.8 million over five years and $108.3 million over ten years. The settlement has

been granted final approval.

Schwab v. America Online, Inc. (America Online Access Litigation). Ben Barnow

served as Class Counsel and Co-Chair in this highly publicized litigation relating to

AOL’s representation that users would have unlimited access to AOL for

$19.95/month and the connectivity problems that ensued in conjunction therewith.

In the face of what was ultimately over one hundred class actions filed nationwide,

Mr. Barnow organized over 50 law firms and set up the co-chairmanship and the

Executive Committee, which brought order and resolution to this litigation. A

settlement was reached and was granted final approval, resulting in a multi-

million-dollar benefit to a Class estimated to include over 8 million people.


Miner v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Ben Barnow served as one of Class Counsel in

this litigation concerning Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s practice of marketing and selling

its Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Ultra-Lights cigarettes as less harmful to smoke

than regular cigarettes when, in fact, they were not. A settlement was reached and

granted final approval, providing for Philip Morris’s payment of $45 million into an

escrow account for the benefit of Class members.

Boland v. McDonald’s Corp. (McDonald’s Sweepstakes Litigation). As Co-Lead Class

Counsel in this litigation, Ben Barnow coordinated the efforts of approximately 25

plaintiffs’ firms. The litigation concerned certain McDonald’s promotional games

and arose from the fraudulent removal of winning game pieces from random public

distribution. Mr. Barnow developed and accomplished the settlement concept; to

wit, for a chance lost, a chance would be given. The settlement, valued at

approximately $20 million, included fifteen $1 million prizes given away by random

selection. The settlement included the United States and nine other countries.

Campos v. Calumet Transload R.R., LLC, Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel in this litigation relating to the defendants’ alleged

negligent storage and handling of petroleum coke and coal at certain industrial

storage facilities in Chicago, Illinois. Two settlements were reached which

collectively provided for the payment of $1,455,000 for the benefit of Settlement

Class members. The settlements were granted final approval.

Fernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead

Counsel in this national class action that settled, resulting in injunctive relief

regarding labeling practices, and additional relief by way of discount coupons and cy pres relief to appropriate charities.

Gianopolous v. Interstate Brand Corp. and Interstate Bakeries Corp. Ben Barnow

was appointed one of Class Counsel in this litigation concerning allegedly

adulterated bakery goods. A settlement was reached and granted final approval,

making valuable relief available to consumers.

Glenz v. RCI, LLC. Ben Barnow served as one of three Class Counsel in this

litigation involving the RCI Points program and allegations of improper use of

points by RCI. The settlement made available cash benefits of approximately $19

million to members of the Settlement Class, and included substantial injunctive

relief. Final approval of the settlement has been granted.

Heilman v. Perfection Corp. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this

national class action concerning allegedly defective dip tubes in over 14.2 million

hot water tanks sold throughout the United States. In this capacity, Mr. Barnow

organized twenty-three law firms and oversaw numerous filings in bringing about a


national unified settlement that provided for a 100% recovery of out-of-pocket

expenses and requisite repairs, including preventive replacement of all concerned

dip tubes, whether or not the dip tubes had actually failed.

In Re: Chicago Flood Litigation. As Co-Lead Class Counsel and a member of the

Executive Committee, Ben Barnow was responsible for several major aspects of this

class action, which included years of litigation, appellate practice, trial, and a multi-

million-dollar settlement. Mr. Barnow argued a related portion of the matter before

the Supreme Court of the United States, Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995), and was responsible for preparing the

petition for a writ of certiorari and all related filings. At the Supreme Court level,

opposing counsel was John Roberts, who now sits as Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court of the United States.

In Re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1632

(“Shell Oil”). Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this 26-

case MDL proceeding relating to the defendant’s alleged sale of defective gasoline. A

settlement was reached and was granted final approval, resulting in approximately

$100 million being made available towards the satisfaction of consumers’ claims.

In Re: Mercury Class Action Litigation. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class

Counsel in this case relating to the location of mercury-containing gas regulators in

and on real estate. A settlement was reached and granted final approval that

provided for medical monitoring, removal of the regulators, and cash compensation

to certain class members.

In Re: M3Power Marketing Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1704. Ben Barnow was

appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel in this MDL proceeding relating to the

defendant’s allegedly deceptive marketing and sale of M3Power shaving razors. A

settlement was reached and granted final approval, making available benefits of

more than $7 million to Class members.

In Re: Pilot Flying J Fuel Rebate Contract Litigation. Ben Barnow served as one of

Settlement Class Counsel in this litigation involving allegations that the defendants

withheld portions of fuel discounts and rebates that Class members were

contractually entitled to receive in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (“RICO”), and various state laws.

The settlement was granted final approval.

In Re: Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1403. Ben Barnow

served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this MDL proceeding relating to the alleged

inclusion of genetically engineered corn in the defendants’ food products. A

settlement was reached, valued at $9 million, including the return of up to $6

million to consumers on a fluid recovery/cy pres basis through price reduction on


future purchases coupled with a cash payment to approved charities based on

shortfall in the redemption.

In Re: United Parcel Service, Inc., Shipper Excess Value Insurance Coverage Litigation. Ben Barnow was one of Settlement Class Counsel in this litigation. A

settlement was reached and granted final approval, providing relief to UPS

shippers who had paid premiums for excess value insurance coverage.

Ori v. Fifth Third Bank. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class

Counsel in this action relating to inactive mortgage loans that were erroneously

reported as active to Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies. The Settlement Class

included approximately 55,000 individuals, and the settlement made available cash

benefits of approximately $3,000,000 to members of the Settlement Class. Final

approval of the settlement has been granted.

Orrick v. Sonic Communications. Ben Barnow was one of Lead Class Counsel in this

matter relating to the practice known as “slamming.” The private actions and

actions filed on behalf of various Attorneys General were consolidated. A settlement

covering all of the pending cases and providing benefits of approximately $8.3

million was achieved and granted final approval. This litigation is believed to be the

first class certification and settlement relating to the practice known as “slamming.”

Rosen v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., Kryptonite Corp. Ben Barnow was Co-Lead Class

Counsel in this matter relating to allegedly defective bicycle locks. Mr. Barnow

organized 18 U.S. and Canadian law firms and negotiated a settlement on behalf of

Class members in the U.S. and Canada. The settlement was granted final approval,

providing valuable relief to purchasers of the allegedly defective U-shaped tubular

cylinder bicycle locks in the U. S. and Canada.

Schneider v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc. Ben Barnow was Co-Class Counsel in this

matter relating to the defendant’s alleged failure to deliver on representations of

100% ground beef. A settlement was reached and granted final approval, which

included significant remedial relief in the form of shop signage regarding

cleanliness and meat grinding practices, and fluid recovery mechanisms to

compensate the class members by way of in-store sales and published coupons.

Schwab v. Binney & Smith. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this

case relating to crayons that were produced for decades with talc, which allegedly

contained, or was subject to containing, asbestos. Mr. Barnow negotiated a national

class settlement that contributed to the reformulation of most crayons produced in

this country, so as to eliminate the inclusion of talc and, thus, the alleged asbestos

inclusion, and the settlement was granted final approval. This represented one of

the largest classes ever certified, if not the largest.


Siegel v. Syncronys. Ben Barnow was Co-Class Counsel in this nationwide class

action concerning an allegedly defective computer product. The matter was settled,

resulting in a remedy for the Class that provided for a 100% reimbursement on

moneys spent for the product; the value of the settlement was estimated at $22

million.

Smith v. J.M. Smucker Co. Ben Barnow was Class Counsel in this litigation

relating to allegedly deceptive advertising practices. Mr. Barnow negotiated a

national settlement and organized a group of plaintiffs’ counsel from over 25 firms

throughout the country who supported the settlement. The settlement was granted

final approval, making available valuable relief to consumers of spreadable fruit

products labeled “Simply 100% Fruit,” including a change of labeling practices by

the defendant, which added and maintained the following language, in prominent

fashion, on the front label of its Simply 100% Fruit products: “Sweetened with fruit

syrup from apple, pineapple or pear juice concentrate,” thus fairly and fully

advising consumers of the product they were purchasing.

Stelk v. BeMusic, Inc. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this

litigation relating to charges for shipping and handling in the context of a “free”

offer. The Class included an estimated 16 million members. A settlement was

reached and granted final approval providing substantial relief to Class members,

including a guaranteed minimum of $8 million.

Antitrust Cases

Wisconsin Civil Microsoft Antitrust Litigation. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-

Lead Class Counsel in this indirect purchaser antitrust lawsuit. Mr. Barnow and

his co-counsel successfully petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to recognize the

rights of indirect purchasers to recover under Wisconsin’s antitrust laws. Olstad v. Microsoft Corp., 700 N.W.2d 139 (Wis. 2005). Subsequently thereto, Mr. Barnow

negotiated a settlement valued at approximately $224 million that was granted

final approval.

Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota Civil Microsoft Antitrust Litigations. Ben Barnow

served as a Co-Lead Class Counsel in the Arkansas, Kansas, and South Dakota

Microsoft civil antitrust cases. Each of these cases settled, and the settlements were

granted final approval.

Microsoft Civil Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1332. Ben Barnow served as a

member of the nine-member Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee in this MDL

antitrust proceeding before Judge Motz in the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland.


Fond Du Lac Bumper Exchange, Inc. v. Jui Li Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ben Barnow

serves as a Co-Lead Counsel for third-party payor plaintiffs in this antitrust action

alleging that certain defendants conspired to artificially inflate the prices of

aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts sold in the U.S. Settlements with four of

the six defendants have been granted final approval, collectively providing for the

payment of $9,850,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class.

Loeb Industries, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Counsel in

this nationwide antitrust class action, which sought recovery on behalf of scrap

copper purchasers who were allegedly harmed by activities designed to manipulate

the copper market. A $20 million cash settlement with one of the defendants

(Merrill Lynch) was reached.

Vichreva v. Cabot Corp. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Counsel in this Florida

antitrust litigation. An $825,500 common fund, which is believed to be the largest

per-consumer Carbon Black state court antitrust class action settlement in the

country, was obtained.

Data Security Breach Cases

In Re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL 2258. The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia appointed Ben Barnow to the

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee—a committee of seven firms established to lead the

litigation—in this MDL proceeding involving over 60 cases relating to a data

security breach that affected approximately 50 million consumers in the United

States and Canada. A settlement agreement was entered into and was granted final

approval. At the final fairness hearing, Judge Battaglia remarked: “Just in the final

analysis, the order, much like all the work by both sides throughout the case, has

been impeccable, highly professional, and skilled. It’s been a real pleasure dealing

with you.”

In Re: TJX Retail Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1838. Ben Barnow served as

one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel for the Consumer Track in this MDL

proceeding relating to the theft of approximately 45 million credit and debit card

numbers used at TJX stores and the personal information of over 454,000 TJX

customers. Mr. Barnow took the lead in negotiating a settlement with TJX’s

attorneys that made available benefits valued at over $200 million to the Class. The

Honorable Judge Young granted final approval to the settlement, which he referred

to as “excellent,” and as containing “innovative” and “groundbreaking” elements.

In Re: Countrywide Fin. Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.

1998. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this forty-

case MDL proceeding relating to a former Countrywide employee’s theft and sale of

millions of Countrywide customers’ private and confidential information. Mr.


Barnow negotiated a settlement that was granted final approval, making benefits

valued at over $650 million available to approximately 17 million Settlement Class

Members. In the opinion granting final approval to the settlement, the Honorable

Chief Judge Russell noted that “Co-Lead Settlement Counsel are nationally

recognized in the field of class actions, particularly those involving security

breaches,” and stated that “the Court was impressed with Co-Lead Counsel and

Countrywide counsels’ knowledge and skill, as represented in the various motions

and hearings that took place throughout this settlement process.”

In Re: Heartland Payment Systems Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.

2046. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Counsel for the Consumer Track in this

MDL proceeding relating to what, at the time, was reported as one of the largest

data security breaches in history. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement on behalf of a

Settlement Class that is estimated to include more than 120 million members.

Notice of the settlement was completed and only one objection was received. Final

approval of the settlement was granted.

Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel in this consolidated proceeding relating to the theft of

approximately 37 million individuals’ private and confidential information from

Certegy Check Services, Inc.’s computer databases. Mr. Barnow organized all

plaintiffs’ counsel and pending cases without the benefit of an MDL and negotiated

a settlement that was granted final approval, making benefits valued at over $500

million available to Settlement Class Members. At the final fairness hearing, the

Honorable Judge Merryday described the settlement as a “good deal,” providing “a

real benefit to a large class of persons” as “the result of the focused attention of

skilled counsel for a protracted time.”

McGann v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel in this proceeding relating to the theft of the credit and

debit card information of an estimated 777,000 individuals from point-of-sale

terminals at affected Schnucks stores. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement that has

been granted final approval, making significant benefits available to the Settlement

Class.

Rowe v. Unicare Life and Health Insurance Co. Ben Barnow was Lead Counsel in

this proceeding relating to the defendants’ alleged failure to secure the private

health information of approximately 220,000 individuals enrolled in the defendants’

health insurance plans, resulting in such information being accessible to the public

via the Internet. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement that was granted final

approval, making benefits valued at over $20 million available to Settlement Class

Members. At the preliminary approval hearing, the Honorable Judge Hibbler

described the efforts of the parties as “exemplary.”


Public Speaking Engagements

1. HarrisMartin’s Equifax Data Breach Litigation Conference (Atlanta, GA,

Nov. 10, 2017), topic: “Settlements” (Program Co-Chair)

2. Bridgeport Continuing Education’s 2016 Class Action Litigation &

Management Conference (Los Angeles, CA, Apr. 15, 2016) (Program Co-

Chair)

3. HarrisMartin’s Data Breach Litigation Conference: The Coming of Age

(San Diego, CA, Mar. 25, 2015), topic: “Creative Approaches to Settling

Data Breach Cases.”

4. Bridgeport Continuing Education’s 2014 National Consumer Class Action

Conference (Chicago, IL, Jun. 12-13, 2014); topic: “Privacy/TCPA Class

Actions: State of the Law, Claims and Defenses, What Does the Future

Hold?”

5. HarrisMartin’s MDL Conference: Target Data Security Breach Litigation

(San Diego, CA, Mar. 26, 2014); topic: “Settlement of a Data Breach Case.”

6. NetDiligence Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum (Marina del Rey, CA,

Oct. 11–12, 2012).

7. 25th Annual Producer Conference (Stowe, VT, Sept. 10–12, 2012); topic:

“Cyber 2.0—The Evolution of Cyber in the Boardroom.”

8. NetDiligence 2012 Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum (Philadelphia,

PA, June 4–5, 2012); topic: “State of the Cyber Nation—Cases, Theories,

and Damages.”

9. Tulane University Law School’s symposium on The Problem of Multidistrict Litigation (February 15–16, 2008); topic: “The Practicalities

of Multidistrict Litigation.”


Exhibit B


1

RESUME OF

Richard L. Coffman

THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM 505 Orleans, Fifth Floor

Beaumont, TX 77701 (409) 833-7700

www.coffmanlawfirm.com

The Coffman Law Firm is a litigation firm based in Beaumont, Texas that represents individuals and businesses across Texas and throughout the United States in complex commercial litigation, class actions and mass actions. The Firm’s litigation practice is focused in the areas of antitrust, agriculture, RICO, data breach, theft of trade secrets, consumer law, and other commercial disputes.

Richard L. Coffman is a trial lawyer and the managing partner of the Coffman Law Firm. Mr. Coffman received his B.A. in Accounting, with highest honors, from Texas Lutheran University in 1978, and his Master in Professional Accounting (1980), with honors, and J.D. (1989) from the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to establishing the Coffman Law Firm, Mr. Coffman worked for a large defense firm in Houston and was a partner in a large plaintiff firm in Beaumont.

Before attending law school, Mr. Coffman, who also is a Certified Public Accountant, worked with two international Big 8 public accounting firms. He also taught accounting courses as an adjunct member of the faculties of the University of Washington and University of Texas business schools.

Mr. Coffman is AV peer-review rated by Martindale-Hubbell and a Texas Super

Lawyer (Class Actions and Mass Torts) (2015-2019). He is admitted to practice in (i) all Texas state courts, (ii) the United States District Courts for the Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern Districts of Texas, the Central and Southern Districts of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, the District of Colorado, (iii) the United States Court of Appeals for the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, (iv) the United States Court of Federal Claims, and (v) the United States Supreme Court. He also has been, and is, admitted pro hac vice in various other state and federal courts.

Mr. Coffman has significant class action leadership experience in the following

data breach cases (among others):


2

1. MDL No. 2357; In re Zappos.com, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (D. Nev.) (Co-Lead Class Counsel).

2. MDL No. 2583; In re The Home Depot, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (N.D. Ga.) (represented the Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Iowa sub-class representatives in the Financial Institutions Track).

3. MDL No. 2046; In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (S.D. Tex.) (Co-Lead Class Counsel for Financial Institutions).

4. MDL 2360; In re: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation (D.D.C.) (Co-Lead Class Counsel).

In other MDL class action proceedings, Mr. Coffman served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in MDL No. 1921; In re: Nissan North America, Inc. Odometer Litigation (M.D. Tenn.) and Co-Lead Class Counsel in Wilson v. Texas Windstorm Insurance Association; Cause No. 09-CV-0421 (56th Judicial District Court, Galveston County, Texas), a class action and mass action on behalf of over 2000 property owners on Bolivar Peninsula whose homes were completely destroyed by Hurricane Ike. Mr. Coffman and his co-counsel secured approximately $175 million of additional insurance benefits for the Wilson property owners.

Mr. Coffman also represented, as counsel of record or as of counsel, (i) nine of

the court appointed state indirect purchaser class representatives in MDL No. 1819; In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which settled for over $41 million, (ii) the Nevada indirect purchaser class representative in MDL No 1827; In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), which settled for approximately $1.1 billion, and (iii) one of the lead direct purchaser class representatives in MDL No. 1957; In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.), which also settled.

In the past, Mr. Coffman served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in other

national class actions, including MDL No. 1354; In re Citigroup, Inc., Capital Accumulation Plan (CAP) Litigation (D. Mass.) (forfeiture of earned compensation accumulated by securities brokers in an employee benefit plan); Robert Castro, Jr., v. PaineWebber, Inc.; Cause No. 1:94CV65 (E.D. Tex.) (securities fraud involving a limited partnership investment); Ronald E. Choinacki v. American Home Products Corporation; Cause No. 2:98CV3573 (D.N.J.) (underpaid lump sum pension


3

benefits) and Belinda Myers-Garrison v. Johnson & Johnson Cause No. 9:97CV0087 (E.D. Tex.) (underpaid lump sum pension benefits).

On the mass action front, Mr. Coffman currently serves as co-lead counsel for over 9400 corn farmers and grain elevators in MDL 2591, In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation (D. Kan.), which recently settled for $1.51 billion. In prior similar litigation, he represented over 900 Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas rice producers against Bayer CropScience for contaminating the U.S. long grain rice seed stock with genetically engineered rice in MDL No. 1811; In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation (E.D. Mo.), which settled for $750 million. One of Mr. Coffman’s clients served as one of the three Texas bellwether plaintiffs.

On the antitrust front, Mr. Coffman currently serves as co-lead counsel for a

group of over twenty-five large grocery wholesaler and retail chain direct purchasers in litigation against StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea for fixing the price of canned tuna in MDL No. 2670; In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation (S.D. Cal.). He also is co-lead counsel for thirty large grocery wholesalers and retail chains, foodservice companies, and meat and poultry distributors in litigation against the seventeen largest U.S. chicken producers for manipulating chicken prices in No. 1:16-vc-08637; In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.). In the past, Mr. Coffman was co-lead counsel for a group of 200 pharmacy and grocery companies with over 1100 retail locations in MDL No. 997; In re Brand- Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Coffman also is active in civic and charitable organizations, previously serving as Vice-Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Board of Beaumont Crime Stoppers. He is currently Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), a learned society based in Alexandria, Virginia, that initiates, encourages, and supports research into, and public understanding of, the history and cultures of the Near East and wider Mediterranean world, from the earliest times. See www.asor.org.

For more information about The Coffman Law Firm, please refer to the Firm

website, www.coffmanlawfirm.com.


Exhibit C


{00300916 }

FIRM RESUME


{00300916 } 2

Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP

The lawyers of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP (“FBFG”)1 have successfully litigated complex class actions in federal and state courts across the country, and have obtained successful results for clients against some of the world’s largest corporations. A sampling of the Firm’s more significant cases includes:

Farruggio v. 918 James Receiver, LLC, No. 3831/2017 (Onondaga Cty. Com. Div.). Class action on behalf of approximately 4,000 residents of an unsafe nursing home. On July 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ contested motion to certify a class of all nursing home residents and appointed a FBFG attorney as class counsel. On December 18, 2018, the Court finally approved a settlement with the current owners valued at over $4 million that required the home to provide substantial injunctive relief to make the home safe and also provided the highest per capita payout of any nursing home class action in New York. Litigation continues against the prior owners.

Saint Joseph Health System Medical Information Cases, JCCP No. 4716 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). Complex class action on behalf of approximately 31,800 patients who were victimized by a data breach. A FBFG lawyer was appointed co-lead class counsel. The Court denied Saint Joseph’s demurrer and the Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. The Court certified the class and denied Saint Joseph’s summary judgment motion; the Court of Appeals upheld those rulings as well. On the eve of trial the parties reached a settlement valued at approximately $39 million and the Court finally approved the settlement on February 3, 2016. This settlement provides the more money per capita to individual class members than any other known data breach settlement.

Sackin v. Transperfect Global, Inc., No. 17-1469 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Class action on behalf of over 4,000 individuals victimized by a data breach. On June 15, 2017, the Court entirely denied Transperfect’s motion to dismiss. The Court appointed FBFG as class counsel and, on December 14, 2018, finally approved a settlement valued at over $40 million.

Castillo v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. 16-1958 (N.D. Cal.). Class action on behalf of over 12,000 individuals victimized by a data breach. On September 19, 2016, the Court denied Seagate’s motion to dismiss in part. The Court appointed a FBFG attorney as co-lead class counsel and, on March 14, 2018, finally approved settlement valued at over $40 million.

Coleman v. Boys Town Nat’l Research Hosp., No. D01CI180008162 (Douglas Cty. Neb.). Class action on behalf of approximately 105,000 individuals victimized by a data breach. The Court found that Plaintiffs have standing and denied Boys

1 Three of the founding partners of FBFG were formerly partners in the firm of Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker, P.C. (“MPNSB”). References in this resume to “lawyers of FBFG” includes instances involving current FBFG lawyers while they were at MPNSB.


{00300916 } 3

Town’s motion to dismiss as to the majority of the claims. The parties are scheduled to mediate.

Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., No. 17-6521 (SD.N.Y.). Nationwide class action on behalf of millions of people with disabilities who are denied services by Lyft. On November 29, 2018, the Court denied Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration, calling Lyft’s arguments “supremely unjust”, and denied in part Lyft’s motion to dismiss.

Durling v. Papa John’s Interantional Inc., No. 16-03592. Nationwide class and collective action on behalf of tens of thousands of Papa John’s delivery drivers who were paid wages below the minimum. On August 3, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective of all corporate Papa John’s delivery drivers.

McLauglin v. IDT Energy No. 14-4107 (E.D.N.Y.). Nationwide class action

alleging that IDT overcharged consumers for gas and electric supply. On October 18, 2018, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as co-lead class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $54 million.

Edwards v. North American Power & Gas, LLC, No. 14-1714 (D. Conn.). Nationwide class action alleging that North American Power charged electricity and gas rates far in excess of what it promised to charge variable rate customers. On August 2, 2018, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as co-lead class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $19 million.

Wise v. Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, No. 11-7345 (S.D.N.Y.). Nationwide class

action alleging that Energy Plus falsely claimed to offer competitive electricity rates when its prices are substantially higher than market rates in violation of New York Gen. Bus. L. § 349 and other consumer protection laws. On September 17, 2013, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as lead class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $11 million.

Chen v. Hiko Energy, LLC, No. 14-1771 (S.D.N.Y.). Multistate class action alleging that Hiko falsely claimed to offer competitive electricity rates when its prices are substantially higher than market rates in violation of New York Gen. Bus. L. § 349 and other consumer protection laws. On May 9, 2016, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $10 million.

Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., No. 13-3073

(S.D.N.Y.). Class action alleging deceptive labeling in connection with Defendant’s Aveeno Naturals brand of personal care products. Plaintiffs defeated Defendant’s motions to dismiss and exclude Plaintiffs’ expert’s report, and obtained class certification and an appointment as Co-Lead Class Counsel. On November 1, 2017, the Court approved a proposed settlement valued at $6.75 million.


{00300916 } 4

In Re: KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, Nos. 15-MD-2645, 15-MC-2645 (S.D.N.Y.). Class action alleging false advertising of Defendant KIND’s snack food products. Appointed as co-lead interim class counsel on November 13, 2015.

Bellino v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14-3139 (S.D.N.Y.). Statewide class action on behalf of mortgagors alleging Chase’s failure to comply with mortgage recording requirements. On November 9, 2017, the Court approved a settlement valued at $10,808,630, certifying the settlement class and appointing FBFG attorneys as class counsel.

Reed v. Friendly’s Ice Cream, LLC, No. 15-0298 (M.D. Pa.). Nationwide class and

collective minimum wage and overtime claim on behalf of approximately 10,000 servers. On January 31, 2017, the Court certified the class, appointed a FBFG lawyer as co-lead class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $4.6 million.

Quinn v. Walgreen, No. 12-8187 (S.D.N.Y.). Nationwide settlement valued at $2.8 million to resolve Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant’s glucosamine products did not perform as represented. On March 24, 2015, the Court certified the class, appointed FBFG lawyers as Co-Lead Class Counsel and approved a nationwide $2.8 million settlement.

Al Fata v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., No. 14-376 (M.D. Fla.). Statewide minimum wage claim on behalf of approximately 2,000 Pizza Hut delivery drivers. On June 21, 2017, the Court certified the class and approved a settlement valued at $3.1 million that provided the then-highest per-person recovery in any delivery driver under-reimbursement class action.

Adler v. Bank of America, N.A, No. 13-4866 (S.D.N.Y.). Class action alleging that

Bank of America failed to timely present certificates of discharge for mortgages that were satisfied in New York State. On July 20, 2016, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $7 million.

In Re: KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, Nos. 15-MD-2645, 15-MC-2645 (S.D.N.Y.). Class action alleging false advertising of Defendant KIND’s snack food products. Appointed as co-lead interim class counsel on November 13, 2015.

In re Michaels Stores, Inc. Zip Code Litigation, No. 11-10920 (D. Mass.). State-wide class action alleging that Michaels Stores unlawfully collected consumers’ private information. After securing a groundbreaking decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, establishing that consumers whose privacy has been violated may bring consumer protection claims against companies that unlawfully collect personal identification information, the lawyers of FBFG were appointed as co-lead class counsel and negotiated a class-wide settlement, which the Court approved.


{00300916 } 5

FBFG is also counsel of record in numerous class actions throughout the country, including cases pending in United States District Courts in New York, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, New Mexico, Colorado, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania, as well as actions pending in the state courts of New York, California, Nebraska, and New Jersey. FBFG also has an accomplished appellate practice, having obtained numerous groundbreaking decisions from federal and state appellate courts. Examples include: In re Zappos.com, Inc., 888 F.3d 1020, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 18-225, 2019 WL 1318579 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2019) (holding that consumers whose personal identification information was stolen in a data breach have Article III standing); Zahn v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC, 2016 IL 120526, 72 N.E.3d 333 reh’g denied (Jan. 23, 2017) (on certified question from the 7th Circuit, holding that the Illinois Commerce Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear consumer claims against alternative retail electricity suppliers); Zahn v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC, 847 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2017) (reversing dismissal of consumer’s putative class action seeking redress for excessive electricity charges by alternative retail electricity supplier); John v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 858 F.3d 732, 738 (2d Cir. 2017) (reversing dismissal of consumer’s putative class action seeking redress for Whole Foods’ alleged practice of representing the weight of prepackaged foods); Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492, 984 N.E.2d 737 (2013) (on certified question from U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, finding that the collecting personal identification information from unwitting consumers violates Massachusetts consumer protection law).


{00300916 } 6

Attorney Profiles

Jeremiah Frei-Pearson

Jeremiah Frei-Pearson is a founding partner of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber. He is a passionate advocate and an experienced litigator who represents consumers and employees in complex class actions. The National Trial Lawyers Association selected Mr. Frei-Pearson as a member of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers every year since 2014. Mr. Frei-Pearson is a member of the Best Attorneys of America, a distinction that is limited to less than 1% of attorneys, and he is also designated as Super Lawyer, a distinction awarded to only 5% of the New York Metro Area. Mr. Frei-Pearson practices in federal and state courts throughout the country and his areas of expertise include class actions, privacy, consumer fraud, employment law, and civil rights.

Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Frei-Pearson was an associate with Kaye Scholer LLP, a multinational law firm, and a staff attorney with Children’s Rights, a national public interest law firm representing children in foster care in class action reform lawsuits. Mr. Frei-Pearson received his B.A. from Skidmore College, Magna Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa in 2000 and he earned his J.D. in 2003 from Stanford Law School. While in law school, Mr. Frei-Pearson was a Public Interest Fellow and served as Senior Symposium Editor of the Stanford Law & Policy Review. A sampling of Mr. Frei-Pearson’s significant cases includes:

Appointed class counsel in Farruggio v. 918 James Receiver, LLC, No. 3831/2017 (Onondaga Cty. Com. Div). Class action on behalf of approximately 4,000 residents of an unsafe nursing home. On July 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ contested motion to certify a class of all nursing home residents. On December 18, 2018, the Court finally approved a settlement with the current owners valued at over $4 million that required the home to provide substantial injunctive relief to make the home safe and also provided the highest per capita payout of any nursing home class action in New York. Litigation continues against the prior owners.

Appointed co-class counsel in Saint Joseph Health System Medical Information Cases, JCCP No. 4716 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The Court denied Saint Joseph’s demurrer and the Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. After more than two years of litigation, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of approximately 31,802 data breach victims. On January 14, 2015, the Court denied Saint Joseph’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals upheld the Court’s summary judgment and class certification decisions. The case was set for trial on August 24, 2015, but the parties reached a settlement valued at approximately $39 million, which the Court finally approved on February 3, 2016. This settlement provides the more money per capita to individual class members than any other known data breach settlement on record.


{00300916 } 7

Appointed co-lead class counsel in Castillo v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. 16-02136 (N.D. Cal.). Class action on behalf of over 12,000 individuals victimized by a data breach. On September 19, 2016, the Court denied Seagate’s motion to dismiss in part. On March 14, 2018, the Court finally approved a settlement valued at over $40 million.

Appointed class counsel in Sackin v. Transperfect Global, Inc., No. 17-1469 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Class action on behalf of over 4,000 individuals victimized by a data breach. On June 15, 2017, the Court entirely denied Transperfect’s motion to dismiss. On December 14, 2018, the Court finally approved a settlement valued at over $40 million.

Appointed co-liaison class counsel in Yahoo! Inc. Private Information Disclosure Cases, JCCP No. 4895 (Cal Sup. Ct.). Complex class action involving one of the largest data breaches in U.S history. The Court denied Yahoo’s demurrer, and, after Plaintiffs’ class certification motion was fully briefed, the parties reached a settlement valued at over $85 million. Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval in federal court.

Lead counsel to Plaintiffs in Coleman v. Boys Town Nat’l Research Hosp., No. D01CI180008162 (Douglas Cty. Neb.). Class action on behalf of approximately 105,000 individuals victimized by a data breach. The Court found that Plaintiffs have standing and denied Boys Town’s motion to dismiss as to the majority of the claims. The parties are scheduled to mediate.

Lead counsel to plaintiffs in Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., No. 17-6521 (SD.N.Y.). Nationwide class action on behalf of millions of people with disabilities who are denied services by Lyft. On November 29, 2018, the Court denied Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration, calling Lyft’s arguments “supremely unjust”, and denied in part Lyft’s motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs will expeditiously move for class certification.

Lead counsel to Plaintiffs and the certified collective in Durling v. Papa John’s

Interantional Inc., No. 16-03592. Nationwide class and collective action on behalf of tens of thousands of Papa John’s delivery drivers who were paid wages below the minimum. On August 3, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective of all corporate Papa John’s delivery drivers.

Appointed co-lead class counsel in Reed v. Friendly’s Ice Cream, LLC, No. 15-cv-00298 (M.D. Pa.). The Court denied motions to dismiss and ruled for plaintiffs on several other motions in this wage and hour class action. On January 31, 2017, the Court certified the class, appointed a FBFG lawyer as co-lead class counsel and finally approved a settlement valued at over $4.6 million.

Appointed co-lead class counsel in Al Fata v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., No. 14-cv-376 (M.D. Fla.). The Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.


{00300916 } 8

While Plaintiffs’ class certification motion was sub judice, the parties reached a class settlement on behalf of a Florida class of delivery drivers alleging minimum wage violations. The Court granted final approval of the settlement, which is valued at $3.1 million, on June 21, 2017.

Appointed class counsel in Hanna v. CFL Pizza, LLC, No. 05-2011-CA-52949 (Fl. Cir. Court). On September 3, 2013, the Court granted final approval of a settlement that created a substantial settlement fund for under-reimbursed Pizza Hut franchisee delivery drivers who alleged violations of Florida minimum wage law.

Appointed co-class counsel in Bellaspica v. PJPA, LLC, No. 13-3014 (E.D. Pa.). On June 22, 2016, the Court granted final approval of a FLSA collective action settlement, providing a settlement fund for under-reimbursed Papa John’s franchisee pizza delivery drivers.

Appointed class counsel in Yoeckel v. Marriott, No. 703387 (Queens Cty. Com. Div.). Class action alleging that Marriott violated New York wage and hour laws. On May 3, 2017, the Court certified a class and finally approved a settlement that provided class members with 100% of their maximum compensatory damages alleged.

Appointed co-class counsel in Miller v. Fresh, No. 14-0880 (Mass. Suffolk Cty.). State-wide class action alleging that Fresh unlawfully collected consumers’ personal identification information. On July 15, 2015 the Court certified a class and granted final approval to a settlement.

Appointed co-class counsel in Miller v. Patagonia, No. 14-0888 (Mass. Suffolk Cty.). State-wide class action alleging that Patagonia unlawfully collected consumers’ personal identification information. On February 9, 2015 the Court certified a class and granted final approval to a settlement.

Counsel to the Plaintiffs in D.G. ex rel. Stricklin v. Henry, No. 08-cv-074 (N.D. Okl.). In this class action to reform Oklahoma’s foster care system, the Court certified a statewide class of Oklahoma’s foster children (an opinion that was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit). As a result of this litigation, Oklahoma has committed to restructuring its state foster care agency to eliminate dangerous practices (such as an unsafe shelter where babies in state custody disproportionately suffered fractured skulls), and improve measurable outcomes for children in state custody.

As counsel in Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie, No. 99-3678 (D.N.J.), worked

with the state agencies, a federally appointed monitor, and the Court to help ensure implementation of a consent decree to reform New Jersey’s foster care system. Among many other significant achievements under the consent decree, New Jersey broke a record for adoptions achieved, significantly reformed supervision procedures that were inadequate, and substantially increased the percentage of


{00300916 } 9

foster children who subsequently attended college. Mr. Frei-Pearson continues to be involved in this litigation in a pro bono capacity.

Mr. Frei-Pearson has received numerous awards for his legal work, including the New York City Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Award for his work on death penalty cases, a citation from the New York City Council for his child advocacy work, and the 2010 Palomountain Award from Skidmore College. Mr. Frei-Pearson is also active in his community; he is a district leader in White Plains, where he serves as Chair of the Mayor’s Sustainability Committee and a member (and former Chair) of the Mayor’s Committee For People With Disabilities; he also serves on the Board of the Legal Services of the Hudson Valley.

Mr. Frei-Pearson is admitted to practice in New York and is a member of the bars of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Northern, Western and Southern Districts of New York.

Greg Blankinship

Greg Blankinship is a founding partner of FBFG, and he specializes in class actions in state and federal courts. Mr. Blankinship has worked on substantial class action matters representing both defendants and plaintiffs in numerous state, federal, and multi-district class actions, including wage and hour and consumer fraud matters. Mr. Blankinship has been named class counsel by numerous courts. Mr. Blankinship has been designated a New York Super Lawyer every year 2014 and 2015, a distinction earned by only five percent of the lawyers in the New York metro area.

Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Blankinship was an associate with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Mr. Blankinship received his B.A. from Emory University in 1991 and his M.A. from the University of North Carolina in 1995. He

attended law school at the University of Washington, where he earned his J.D. in 2003. While in law school, Mr. Blankinship was a member of the University of Washington Law Review.

A sampling of Mr. Blankinship’s successful cases includes:

Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., No. 13-3073 (S.D.N.Y.). Class action alleging deceptive labeling in connection with Defendant’s Aveeno Naturals brand of personal care products. Plaintiffs defeated Defendant’s motions to dismiss and exclude Plaintiffs’ expert’s report, and won class certification. On November 1, 2017, the Court approved a proposed settlement valued at $6.75 million.

Appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Executive committee in In Re: Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 16-MD-2695 (D. N.M.). Plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation contend that Santa Fe Natural Tobacco mislead consumers into believing their cigarettes were less harmful that others because they are natural and organic. Litigation is on-going.


{00300916 } 10

Class counsel in McLauglin v. IDT Energy No. 14-4107 (E.D.N.Y.). Nationwide class action alleging that IDT overcharged consumers for gas and electric supply. On October 18, 2018, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as co-lead class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $54 million.

Class counsel in Edwards v. North American Power & Gas, LLC, No. 14-1714 (D. Conn.). Nationwide class action alleging that North American Power charged electricity and gas rates far in excess of what it promised to charge variable rate customers. On August 2, 2018, the Court certified the class, appointed the lawyers of FBFG as co-lead class counsel, and approved the settlement valued at over $19 million.

Counsel in Wise v. Energy Plus Holdings LLC, No. 11-7345 (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs alleged that Energy Plus, an independent electricity supplier, misrepresented that its rates were reflective of the market when they were much higher. The Court granted final approval of a settlement covering more than 400,000 consumers in eight states and valued at more than $11,000,000.

Appointed Class Counsel in Brenner v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., No. 13-11212 (D. Mass.). Plaintiff alleged that J.C. Penney requested and recorded customers’ ZIP codes, which it then used to identify consumers’ mailing addresses to send them junk mail, in violation of Massachusetts law. The Court granted final approval of a settlement valued at more than $3.5 million.

Appointed Class Counsel in Brenner v. Kohl’s Corporation, No. 13-cv-10935 (D. Mass). State-wide class action alleging that Kohl’s unlawfully collected consumers’ personal identification information. On December 5, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement valued at $435,000 and appointed lawyers of FBFG class counsel.

Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Chen v. HikoEnergy, LLC, No. 14-cv-01771 (S.D.N.Y.). State-wide class action alleging that Hiko charged deceptively high electricity and natural gas rates.

Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Tyler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., No. 13-10639 (D. Mass.). Plaintiff alleged that Bed, Bath & Beyond illegally requested and recorded customers’ ZIP codes.

Mr. Blankinship’s broad experience as a litigator has also exposed him to a wide variety of substantive business and consumer issues. He also has substantial experience with the issues and procedural aspects of large class action and complex cases.

Mr. Blankinship is admitted to practice in New York and Massachusetts and is a member of the bars of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern Districts of New York, the District of Connecticut, the District of Massachusetts, and the First, Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.


{00300916 } 11

Todd S. Garber

Todd S. Garber is a founding partner in the Firm. Mr. Garber is an experienced litigator, who practices in state and federal courts. His areas of experience include class actions, consumer fraud, securities fraud, complex commercial disputes, business torts, antitrust, and general litigation. Mr. Garber was designated a New York Super Lawyer in 2013 and 2014, a distinction earned by only five percent of the lawyers in the New York metro area.

Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Garber worked at Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., where he prosecuted and defended complex commercial litigation matters and class actions.

Mr. Garber’s career achievements include:

Appointed Class Counsel in Brenner v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., No. 13-11212 (D. Mass.). Plaintiff alleged that J.C. Penney requested and recorded customers’ ZIP codes, which it then used to identify consumers’ mailing addresses to send them junk mail, in violation of Massachusetts law. The Court granted final approval of a settlement valued at more than $3.5 million.

Appointed Class Counsel in Brenner v. Kohl’s Corporation, No. 13-cv-10935 (D. Mass). State-wide class action alleging that Kohl’s unlawfully collected consumers’ personal identification information. On March 12, 2014, the Court granted final approval to a settlement valued at $425,000 and appointed lawyers of FBFG class counsel.

Appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel in Quinn v. Walgreen, No. 12-8187 (S.D.N.Y.). Nationwide settlement valued at $2.8 million to resolve Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant’s glucosamine products did not perform as represented. . On March 24, 2015, the Court finally approved the settlement and certified the class.

Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Chen v. HikoEnergy, LLC, No. 14-cv-01771 (S.D.N.Y.). State-wide class action alleging that Hiko charged deceptively high electricity and natural gas rates. On May 9, 2016, the Court certified the class and approved a settlement valued at over $10 million.

Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., No. 13-3073 (S.D.N.Y.). Class action alleging deceptive labeling in connection with Defendant’s Aveeno Naturals brand of personal care products. Plaintiffs defeated Defendant’s motions to dismiss and exclude Plaintiffs’ expert’s report, and won class certification. On November 1, 2017, the Court approved a proposed settlement valued at $6.75 million.

Appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel in Tyler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., No. 13-10639 (D. Mass.). Plaintiff alleged that Bed, Bath & Beyond illegally requested and recorded customers’ ZIP codes.


{00300916 } 12

Class Counsel in Wise v. Energy Plus Holdings LLC, No. 11-7345 (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs

alleged that Energy Plus, an independent electricity supplier, misrepresented that its rates were reflective of the market when they were much higher. The Court granted final approval of a settlement covering more than 400,000 consumers in eight states and valued at more than $11,000,000.

As counsel for the New York City Pension Funds, Lead Plaintiff in In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-06-04327 JW (N.D. Cal 2010), helped achieve a settlement of $169.5 million, one of the largest settlements in an options backdating case, after more than three years of hard-fought litigation.

Involvement in the prosecution of a number of high-profile cases, which have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in recoveries for investors, including In re WorldCom Securities Litigation, In re HealthSouth Securities Litigation, In re DaimlerChrysler AG Securities Litigation, and In re Bayer AG Securities Litigation.

Representation of institutional investors in stockholder voting rights and corporate governance cases, including Gabelli Global Multimedia v. Western Investment LLC, 700 F. Supp. 2d 748 (D. Md. 2010); Delcath Systems, Inc. v. Ladd, 466 F.3d 257 (2d. Cir. 2006); Salomon Brothers Mun. Partners Fund, Inc. v. Thornton, 410 F. Supp. 2d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); meVC Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund I, Inc. v. Millennium Partners, 260 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); and Millenco L.P. v. meVC Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund I, Inc., 824 A.2d 11 (Del. Ch. 2002).

Mr. Garber received his B.A. from Cornell University in 1999 and his J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2002, where he was articles editor for the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, and was competitively selected to work for the New York City Law Department’s Corporation Counsel in its Appellate Division.

Mr. Garber co-authored “Morrison v. National Australia Bank: The Potential Impact on Public Pension Fund Fiduciaries,” The NAPPA Report, Vol. 24, Number 3, August 2010, and “Loss Causation in the Ninth Circuit,” New York Law Journal, September 2, 2008. Mr. Garber is admitted to practice in New York and Connecticut and is a member of the bars of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Western and Southern Districts of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


{00300916 } 13

Andrew Finkelstein

Andrew Finkelstein is the Managing Partner of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. He has become a noted consumer activist through his representation of injured individuals against corporate wrong doers and other irresponsible parties.

Mr. Finkelstein served as Captain of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund in a pro bono capacity, where he helped obtain over $10 million for victims and waived all legal fees associated with this representation. Mr. Finkelstein is also the Chairman of the Plaintiff Personal Injury Steering committee for the Neurontin Liability Multi District Litigation in Boston, Massachusetts. He has worked closely with the FDA regarding the adverse effects associated with Neurontin, having filed a Citizens Petition seeking enhanced warning of the side effects of this drug, specifically increased suicidal tendencies. Additionally, Mr.

Finkelstein is a member of the Executive Steering Committee of the Hormone Replacement Therapy Multi District Litigation in both Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Little Rock, Arkansas. He is a member of the Plaintiff Steering Committee of the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch New Jersey Coordinated Litigation, and the Plaintiff Steering Committee of the Viagra Multi District Litigation in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Mr. Finkelstein is a frequent lecturer at Continuing Legal Education courses. His topics include “Science in the Courtroom”, “Technology in the Courtroom”, “Prosecution of a Pharmaceutical Case”, “The Ethics of On-line Advertising”, and “Structured Settlements and the Personal Injury Settlement.”

In addition to these presentations, Mr. Finkelstein volunteers his time to present his “Commit to Quit Texting While Driving” seminar to area high school students. Bradley F. Silverman

Mr. Silverman is a highly experienced litigator. He has represented individuals and public and private companies in courts throughout the country. He has broad experience handling numerous types of disputes. This experience includes the representation of plaintiffs and defendants in: class actions; contract disputes; employment matters; disputes relating to the management and control of closely held businesses; intellectual property and trade secret disputes; RICO actions; antitrust and unfair competition matters; real estate disputes; Title IX and other claims relating to college disciplinary actions; challenges to local and state laws that are either unconstitutional or preempted by federal law; and actions to enforce First Amendment rights.

At FBFG, Mr. Silverman’s practice focuses on class actions in which he represents individuals across the country who have been harmed by the unlawful acts of companies. Past class actions in which he has been involved include In re: Coca-Coca Products Marketing and Sales Practices


{00300916 } 14

Litigation, a multidistrict litigation where Mr. Silverman’s prior firm served as co-lead counsel for all plaintiffs. In that case and in other cases, he has asserted claims against some of the largest food manufacturers in the world for placing illegal, deceptive, and false statements on product labels. Prior to joining FBFG, Mr. Silverman practiced at several of the leading litigation firms in New York City, including the international law firm of Kaye Scholer LLP (now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP). He received his undergraduate degree, magna cum laude, from Brandeis University. He received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he served as a member of the Moot Court Board and as Senior Editor of the Journal of International Economic Law. Born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, he and his family now reside in Westchester County. Chantal Khalil

Ms. Khalil is an associate at FBFG, where she specializes in class actions in state and federal courts. She is admitted to practice in New York and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ms. Khalil received her J.D. from George Washington University Law School and her B.A. from New York University (magna cum laude). During Law School, Ms. Khalil served on The George Washington International Law Review, was recognized as a Thurgood Marshall Scholar, and received President Obama’s Volunteer Service Award.

Ayana McGuire

Ms. McGuire is an associate at FBFG, where she specializes in class actions in state and federal courts. Ms. McGuire received her J.D. from University of Connecticut School of Law and her B.A. from Cornell University. She is a member of the New York bar.

John Sardesai-Grant

Mr. Sardesai-Grant is an Associate at FBFG, where he specializes in class actions in state and federal courts.

Before joining FBFG, John was an associate at Baritz & Colman LLP, where he represented clients in employment discrimination and commercial disputes. As of counsel to Reese Richman LLP, John brought cases against the New York Police Department on behalf of victims of police misconduct. As an associate at Brower Piven, P.C., he prosecuted complex securities fraud class actions on behalf of shareholders. And as an associate at Bickel & Brewer, a premier commercial litigation boutique, he

represented clients in a variety of regulatory and commercial matters.


{00300916 } 15

John earned his B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as an M.A. in Chinese from the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. John received his J.D. from New York University School of Law.

John is admitted to practice in New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of Colorado. He is an active member of the New York County Lawyers Association.

Jean Sedlak

Ms. Sedlak is an associate at FBFG where she specializes in class actions in state and federal court. Ms. Sedlak has helped to recover millions of dollars for victims of corporate wrongdoing. Ms. Sedlak has successfully prosecuted cases involving claims of false advertising and deceptive practices, wage and hour violations, and violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Prior to joining FBFG Ms. Sedlak worked as an associate at Latham & Watkins, completed a judicial clerkship in Hawaii and practiced class action law at a firm in New York City. Ms. Sedlak earned her J.D. from UCLA School of Law where she served as the Financial Director of the El Centro Legal Clinic and earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Finance from Chapman University.

W. Scott Terrell III

Mr. Terrell is an associate at FBFG, where he specializes in class actions in state and federal courts. Before joining FBFG, Mr. Terrell clerked for the Honorable Dale S. Fisher and for Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson, both in the Central District of California. He also worked for four years in the Bronx District Attorney’s Office, serving successfully in the Trial Bureau and in the Appeals Bureau. Mr. Terrell received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law and his B.A. from Morehouse College.

Andrew White Mr. White is an associate at FBFG, where he specializes in class actions in state and federal courts. Mr. White received his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.A. from State University of New York, College at Potsdam. During law school, Mr. White served as an editor for the Journal of Law and Liberty. Mr. White is admitted to practice in New York and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


Exhibit D


482505.1 OFFICE Page 1

FIRM RESUME

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (the “Firm”) has represented investors, consumers and employees for over 25 years. Based in Los Angeles, with offices in New York City and Berkeley, the Firm has successfully prosecuted class action cases and complex litigation in federal and state courts throughout the country. As Lead Counsel, Co-Lead Counsel, or as a member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Executive Committees, the Firm’s attorneys have recovered billions of dollars for parties wronged by corporate fraud, antitrust violations and malfeasance. Indeed, the Institutional Shareholder Services unit of RiskMetrics Group has recognized the Firm as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States in its Securities Class Action Services report for every year since the inception of the report in 2003. The Firm’s efforts have been publicized in major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.

Glancy Prongay & Murray’s commitment to high quality and excellent personalized services has boosted its national reputation, and we are now recognized as one of the premier plaintiffs’ firms in the country. The Firm works tenaciously on behalf of clients to produce significant results and generate lasting corporate reform.

The Firm’s integrity and success originate from our attorneys, who are among the brightest and most experienced in the field. Our distinguished litigators have an unparalleled track record of investigating and prosecuting corporate wrongdoing. The Firm is respected for both the zealous advocacy with which we represent our clients’ interests as well as the highly-professional and ethical manner by which we achieve results. We are ideally positioned to pursue securities, antitrust, consumer, and derivative litigation on behalf of our clients. The Firm’s outstanding accomplishments are the direct result of the exceptional talents of our attorneys and employees.

SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS Appointed as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel by judges throughout the United States, Glancy Prongay & Murray has achieved significant recoveries for class members in numerous securities class actions, including: In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 05-3395-JF, in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a settlement valued at over $117 million. In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 98-7035-DDP, in which the Firm served as local counsel and

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

T: 310.201.9150



plaintiffs achieved a $184 million jury verdict after a complex six week trial in Los Angeles, California and later settled the case for $83 million. In Re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 5:17-cv-00373-LHK, in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved an $80 million settlement. The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., USDC District of Minnesota, Case No. 10-cv-04372-DWF/JJG, in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a settlement valued at $62.5 million. Schleicher v. Wendt, (Conseco Securities Litigation), USDC Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 02-1332-SEB, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $41 million. Robb v. Fitbit, Inc., USDC Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-00151, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $33 million. Yaldo v. Airtouch Communications, State of Michigan, Wayne County, Case No. 99-909694-CP, in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a settlement valued at over $32 million for defrauded consumers. Lapin v. Goldman Sachs, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 03-0850-KJD, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $29 million. In re Heritage Bond Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 02-ML-1475-DT, where as Co-Lead Counsel, the Firm recovered in excess of $28 million for defrauded investors and continues to pursue additional defendants. In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 99 Civ 9425-VM, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $27 million. In re ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 01-913-A, in which the Firm served as sole Lead Counsel and recovered almost $22 million for defrauded ECI investors. Senn v. Sealed Air Corporation, USDC New Jersey, Case No. 03-cv-4372-DMC, a securities fraud class action, in which the Firm acted as co-lead counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $20 million. In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of New York, Case No. 02-1510-CPS, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $20 million.



In re Lumenis, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No.02-CV-1989-DAB, in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel and achieved a settlement valued at over $20 million. In re Infonet Services Corporation Securities Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. CV 01-10456-NM, in which as Co-Lead Counsel, the Firm achieved a settlement of $18 million. In re ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 98 Civ. 7530-NRB, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as sole Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $17 million. In re Musicmaker.com Securities Litigation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 00-02018-CAS, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm was sole Lead Counsel for the Class and recovered in excess of $13 million. In re Lason, Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 99 76079-AJT, in which the Firm was Co-Lead Counsel and recovered almost $13 million for defrauded Lason stockholders. In re Inso Corp. Securities Litigation, USDC District of Massachusetts, Case No. 99 10193-WGY, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $12 million. In re National TechTeam Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 97-74587-AC, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement valued in excess of $11 million. Taft v. Ackermans (KPNQwest Securities Litigation), USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 02-CV-07951-PKL, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement worth $11 million. Jenson v. First Trust Corporation, USDC Central District of California, Case No. 05-cv-3124-ABC, in which the Firm was appointed sole lead counsel and achieved an $8.5 million settlement in a very difficult case involving a trustee’s potential liability for losses incurred by investors in a Ponzi scheme. Kevin Ruf of the Firm also successfully defended in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the trial court’s granting of class certification in this case. In re Ramp Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, USDC Northern District of California, Case No. C-00-3645-JCS, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of nearly $7 million. Capri v. Comerica, Inc., USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 02-CV-60211-MOB, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $6.0 million.



Plumbing Solutions Inc. v. Plug Power, Inc., USDC Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV 00 5553-ERK, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of over $5 million. Ree v. Procom Technologies, Inc., USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 02-CV-7613-JGK, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $2.7 million. Tatz v. Nanophase Technologies Corp., USDC Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 01-C-8440-MCA, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and achieved a settlement of $2.5 million. In re F & M Distributors Securities Litigation, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 95 CV 71778-DT, a securities fraud class action in which the Firm served on the Executive Committee and helped secure a $20.25 million settlement.

ANTITRUST PRACTICE GROUP AND ACHIEVEMENTS Glancy Prongay & Murray’s Antitrust Practice Group focuses on representing individuals and entities that have been victimized by unlawful monopolization, price-fixing, market allocation, and other anti-competitive conduct. The Firm has prosecuted significant antitrust cases and has helped individuals and businesses recover billions of dollars. Prosecuting civil antitrust cases under federal and state laws throughout the country, the Firm’s Antitrust Practice Group represents consumers, businesses, and Health and Welfare Funds and seeks injunctive relief and damages for violations of antitrust and commodities laws. The Firm has served, or is currently serving, as Lead Counsel, Co-Lead Counsel or Class Counsel in a substantial number of antitrust class actions, including: In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 94 C 3996-RWS, MDL Docket No. 1023, a landmark antitrust lawsuit in which the Firm filed the first complaint against all of the major NASDAQ market makers and served on Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Executive Committee in a case that recovered $900 million for investors. Sullivan v. DB Investments, USDC District of New Jersey, Case No. No. 04-cv-2819, where the Firm served as Co-Lead Settlement Counsel in an antitrust case against DeBeers relate to the pricing of diamonds that settled for $295 million. In re Korean Air Lines Antitrust Litig., USDC Central District of California, Master File No. CV 07-05107 SJO(AGRx), MDL No. 07-0189, where the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in a case related to fixing of prices for airline tickets to Korea that settled for $86 million.



In re Urethane Chemical Antitrust Litig., USDC District of Kansas, Case No. MDL 1616, where the Firm served as Co-Lead counsel in an antitrust price fixing case that settled $33 million. In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Litig., USDC District of Nevada, Case No. MDL 1566, where the Firm served as Class Counsel in an antitrust price fixing case that settled $25 million. In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., USDC District of Connecticut, Case No. 14-cv-2516, where the Firm played a major role in achieving a settlement of $54,000,000. In re Solodyn Antitrust Litig., USDC District of Massachusetts, Case No. MDL 2503, where the Firm played a major role in achieving a settlement of $43,000,000. In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litig., USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 16-md-2427, where the Firm is representing a major Health and Welfare Fund in a case against a number of generic drug manufacturers for price fixing generic drugs. In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litig., USDC Southern District of New York, Case No. 13-cv-9244, where the Firm is serving on Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. In re Heating Control Panel Direct Purchaser Action, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 12-md-02311, representing a recreational vehicle manufacturer in a price-fixing class action involving direct purchasers of heating control panels. In re Instrument Panel Clusters Direct Purchaser Action, USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 12-md-02311, representing a recreational vehicle manufacturer in a price-fixing class action involving direct purchasers of instrument panel clusters. In addition, the Firm is currently involved in the prosecution of many market manipulation cases relating to violations of antitrust and commodities laws, including Sullivan v. Barclays PLC (manipulation of Euribor rate), In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., In re Gold Futures & Options Trading Litig., In re Platinum & Palladium Antitrust Litig., Sonterra Cap. Master Fund v. Credit Suisse Group AG (Swiss Libor rate manipulation), Twin City Iron Pension Fund v. Bank of Nova Scotia (manipulation of treasury securities), and Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group (manipulation of wheat prices). Glancy Prongay & Murray has been responsible for obtaining favorable appellate opinions which have broken new ground in the class action or securities fields, or which have promoted shareholder rights in prosecuting these actions. The Firm successfully argued the appeals in a number of cases: In Smith v. L’Oreal, 39 Cal.4th 77 (2006), Firm partner Kevin Ruf established ground-breaking law when the California Supreme Court agreed with the Firm’s position that



waiting penalties under the California Labor Code are available to any employee after termination of employment, regardless of the reason for that termination.

OTHER NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS Other notable Firm cases are: Silber v. Mabon I, 957 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992) and Silber v. Mabon II, 18 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994), which are the leading decisions in the Ninth Circuit regarding the rights of opt-outs in class action settlements. In Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000), the Firm won a seminal victory for investors before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which adopted a more favorable pleading standard for investors in reversing the District Court’s dismissal of the investors’ complaint. After this successful appeal, the Firm then recovered millions of dollars for defrauded investors of the GT Interactive Corporation. The Firm also argued Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended, 320 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2003), and favorably obtained the substantial reversal of a lower court’s dismissal of a cutting edge, complex class action initiated to seek redress for a group of employees whose stock options were improperly forfeited by a giant corporation in the course of its sale of the subsidiary at which they worked. The Firm is also involved in the representation of individual investors in court proceedings throughout the United States and in arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, National Association of Securities Dealers, New York Stock Exchange, and Pacific Stock Exchange. Mr. Glancy has successfully represented litigants in proceedings against such major securities firms and insurance companies as A.G. Edwards & Sons, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley, PaineWebber, Prudential, and Shearson Lehman Brothers. One of the Firm’s unique skills is the use of “group litigation” - the representation of groups of individuals who have been collectively victimized or defrauded by large institutions. This type of litigation brought on behalf of individuals who have been similarly damaged often provides an efficient and effective economic remedy that frequently has advantages over the class action or individual action devices. The Firm has successfully achieved results for groups of individuals in cases against major corporations such as Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and Occidental Petroleum Corporation. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP currently consists of the following attorneys:

PARTNERS

LEE ALBERT, a partner, was admitted to the bars of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey in 1986. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Temple University and Arcadia University in 1975 and 1980, respectively, and received his J.D. degree from Widener University School of Law in 1986. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Albert spent several years working as a



civil litigator in Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Albert has extensive litigation and appellate practice experience having argued before the Supreme and Superior Courts of Pennsylvania and has over fifteen years of trial experience in both jury and non-jury cases and arbitrations. Mr. Albert has represented a national health care provider at trial obtaining injunctive relief in federal court to enforce a five-year contract not to compete on behalf of a national health care provider and injunctive relief on behalf of an undergraduate university. Currently, Mr. Albert represents clients in all types of complex litigation including matters concerning violations of federal and state antitrust and securities laws, mass tort/product liability and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Some of Mr. Albert’s current major cases include In Re Automotive Wire Harness Systems Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Mich.); In Re Heater Control Panels Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Mich.); Kleen Products, et al. v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.); and In re Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D. Del.). Previously, Mr. Albert had a significant role in Marine Products Antitrust Litigation (C.D. Cal.); Baby Products Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.); In re ATM Fee Litigation (N.D. Cal.); In re Canadian Car Antitrust Litigation (D. Me.); In re Broadcom Securities Litigation (C.D. Cal.); and has worked on In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (E.D. Pa.); In re Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch Litigation (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex County); In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); and In re Microsoft Corporation Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation (Mass. Super. Ct.). PETER A. BINKOW has prosecuted lawsuits on behalf of consumers and investors in state and federal courts throughout the United States. He served as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in many class action cases, including: In re Mercury Interactive Securities Litigation ($117.5 million recovery); The City of Farmington Hills Retirement System v Wells Fargo ($62.5 million recovery); Schleicher v Wendt (Conseco Securities litigation - $41.5 million recovery); Lapin v Goldman Sachs ($29 million recovery); In re Heritage Bond Litigation ($28 million recovery); In re National Techteam Securities Litigation ($11 million recovery for investors); In re Lason Inc. Securities Litigation ($12.68 million recovery), In re ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation ($17 million recovery); and many others. In Schleicher v Wendt, Mr. Binkow successfully argued the seminal Seventh Circuit case on class certification, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. He has argued and/or prepared appeals before the Ninth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Sixth Circuit and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals. Mr. Binkow joined the Firm in 1994. He was born on August 16, 1965 in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Binkow obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Michigan in 1988 and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Southern California in 1994. JOSEPH D. COHEN has extensive complex civil litigation experience, and currently oversees the firm’s settlement department, negotiating, documenting and obtaining court approval of the firm’s securities, merger and derivative settlements.



Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Cohen successfully prosecuted numerous securities fraud, consumer fraud, antitrust and constitutional law cases in federal and state courts throughout the country. Cases in which Mr. Cohen took a lead role include: Jordan v. California Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 100 Cal. App. 4th 431 (2002) (complex action in which the California Court of Appeal held that California’s Non-Resident Vehicle $300 Smog Impact Fee violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, paving the way for the creation of a $665 million fund and full refunds, with interest, to 1.7 million motorists); In re Geodyne Res., Inc. Sec. Litig. (Harris Cty. Tex.) (settlement of securities fraud class action, including related litigation, totaling over $200 million); In re Cmty. Psychiatric Centers Sec. Litig. (C.D. Cal.) (settlement of $55.5 million was obtained from the company and its auditors, Ernst & Young, LLP); In re McLeodUSA Inc., Sec. Litig. (N.D. Iowa) ($30 million settlement); In re Arakis Energy Corp. Sec. Litig. (E.D.N.Y.) ($24 million settlement); In re Metris Cos., Inc., Sec. Litig. (D. Minn.) ($7.5 million settlement); In re Landry’s Seafood Rest., Inc. Sec. Litig. (S.D. Tex.) ($6 million settlement); and Freedman v. Maspeth Fed. Loan and Savings Ass’n, (E.D.N.Y) (favorable resolution of issue of first impression under RESPA resulting in full recovery of improperly assessed late fees). Mr. Cohen was also a member of the teams that obtained substantial recoveries in the following cases: In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) (partial settlements of approximately $2 billion); In re Washington Mutual Mortgage-Backed Sec. Litig. (W.D. Wash.) (settlement of $26 million); Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co. (E.D. Pa.) ($8 million recovery in antitrust action on behalf of class of indirect purchasers of the prescription drug Doryx); City of Omaha Police and Fire Ret. Sys. v. LHC Group, Inc. (W.D. La.) (securities class action settlement of $7.85 million); and In re Pacific Biosciences of Cal., Inc. Sec. Litig. (Cal. Super. Ct.) ($7.6 million recovery). In addition, Mr. Cohen was previously the head of the settlement department at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. While at BLB&G, Mr. Cohen had primary responsibility for overseeing the team working on the following settlements, among others: In Re Merck & Co., Inc. Sec., Deriv. & “ERISA” Litig. (D.N.J.) ($1.062 billion securities class action settlement); New York State Teachers’ Ret. Sys. v. General Motors Co. (E.D. Mich.) ($300 million securities class action settlement); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) ($150 million settlement); Dep’t of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Inv. v. Cliffs Natural Res. Inc., et al. (N.D. Ohio) ($84 million securities class action settlement); In re Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) ($19.76 million settlement); and In re BioScrip, Inc. Sec. Litig. ($10.9 million settlement). JOSHUA L. CROWELL, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities cases on behalf of investors.

Recently, he was co-lead counsel in In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-CV-00373-LHK (N.D. Cal.), which resulted in an $80 million settlement for the class. He also led the prosecution of In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill.), achieving a $24 million class settlement.



Prior to joining Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Joshua was an Associate at Labaton Sucharow LLP in New York, where he substantially contributed to some of the firm’s biggest successes. There he helped secure several large federal securities class settlements, including:

In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-05295 MRP (MANx) (C.D. Cal.) – $624 million

In re Schering-Plough Corp. / ENHANCE Securities Litigation, No. 08-397 (DMC) (JAD) (D.N.J.) – $473 million

In re Broadcom Corp. Class Action Litigation, No. CV-06-5036-R (CWx) (C.D. Cal.) – $173.5 million

In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation, No. 08-civ-7831-PAC (S.D.N.Y.) – $170 million

Oppenheimer Champion Fund and Core Bond Fund actions, Nos. 09-cv-525-JLK-KMT and 09-cv-1186-JLK-KMT (D. Colo.) – $100 million combined

He began his legal career as an Associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in New York, primarily representing financial services clients in commercial litigation.

Super Lawyers has selected Joshua as a Rising Star in the area of Securities Litigation from 2015 through 2017.

Prior to attending law school, Mr. Joshua was a Senior Economics Consultant at Ernst & Young LLP, where he priced intercompany transactions and calculated the value of intellectual property. Joshua received a J.D., cum laude, from The George Washington University Law School. During law school, he was a member of The George Washington Law Review and the Mock Trial Board. He was also a law intern for Chief Judge Edward J. Damich of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Joshua earned a B.A. in International Relations from Carleton College. LIONEL Z. GLANCY, a graduate of University of Michigan Law School, is the founding partner of the Firm. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Judge Howard McKibben, he began his career as an associate at a New York law firm concentrating in securities litigation. Thereafter, he started a boutique law firm specializing in securities litigation, and other complex litigation, from the Plaintiff’s perspective. Mr. Glancy has established a distinguished career in the field of securities litigation over the last fifteen years, having appeared and been appointed lead counsel on behalf of aggrieved investors in securities class action cases throughout the country. He has appeared and argued before dozen of district courts and a number of appellate courts. His efforts have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement proceeds for huge classes of shareholders. Well known in securities law, he has lectured on its developments and practice, including having lectured before Continuing Legal Education seminars and law schools. Mr. Glancy was born in Windsor, Canada, on April 4, 1962. Mr. Glancy earned his undergraduate degree in political science in 1984 and his Juris Doctor degree in 1986,



both from the University of Michigan. He was admitted to practice in California in 1988, and in Nevada and before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in 1989. MARC L. GODINO has extensive experience successfully litigating complex, class action lawsuits as a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Since joining the firm in 2005, Mr. Godino has played a primary role in cases resulting in settlements of more than $100 million. He has prosecuted securities, derivative, merger & acquisition, and consumer cases throughout the country in both state and federal court, as well as represented defrauded investors at FINRA arbitrations. Mr. Godino manages the Firm’s consumer class action department. While a senior associate with Stull Stull & Brody, Mr. Godino was one of the two primary attorneys involved in Small v. Fritz Co., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (April 7, 2003), in which the California Supreme Court created new law in the State of California for shareholders that held shares in detrimental reliance on false statements made by corporate officers. The decision was widely covered by national media including The National Law Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the New York Law Journal, among others, and was heralded as a significant victory for shareholders. Mr. Godino’s successes with Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP include: Good Morning To You Productions Corp., et al., v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-04460 (C.D. Cal.) (In this highly publicized case that attracted world-wide attention, Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that the song “Happy Birthday” should be in the public domain and achieved a $14,000,000 settlement to class members who paid a licensing fee for the song); Ord v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania, Case No. 12-766 (W. D. Pa.) ($3,000,000 settlement plus injunctive relief); Pappas v. Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc., Case No. 11-08276 (C.D. Cal.) ($9,000,000 settlement plus injunctive relief);Astiana v. Kashi Company, Case No. 11-1967 (S.D. Cal.) ($5,000,000 settlement); In re Magma Design Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-2394 (N.D. Cal.) ($13,500,000 settlement); In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-0099 (D.N.J.) ($4,000,000 settlement); In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-5416 (C.D. Cal.) ($3,000,000 settlement); Kelly v. Phiten USA, Inc., Case No. 11-67 (S.D. Iowa) ($3,200,000 settlement plus injunctive relief); (Shin et al., v. BMW of North America, 2009 WL 2163509 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2009) (after defeating a motion to dismiss, the case settled on very favorable terms for class members including free replacement of cracked wheels); Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. MIVA, Inc., Case No. 06-1923 (S.D.N.Y.) ($3,936,812 settlement); Esslinger, et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Case No. 10-03213 (E.D. Pa.) ($23,500,000 settlement); In re Discover Payment Protection Plan Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 10-06994 ($10,500,000 settlement ); In Re: Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-md-02269 (N.D. Cal.) ($20,000,000 settlement). Mr. Godino was also the principal attorney in the following published decisions: In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation, 714 Fed Appx. 761 (9th Cir. 2018) (reversing order dismissing class action complaint); Small et al., v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, et al., 2017 WL 3461364 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2017)



(denying motion to dismiss); Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc., 108 F.Supp. 3d 780 (N.D. Cal.. June 5, 2015) (motion to dismiss denied); Peterson v. CJ America, Inc., 2015 WL 11582832 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2015) (motion to dismiss denied); Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company, 2014 WL 4652283 (N. D. Cal. Sep 18, 2014) (class certification granted in part); Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F. 3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration); Sateriale, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F. 3d 777 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing order dismissing class action complaint); Shin v. BMW of North America, 2009 WL 2163509 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2009) (motion to dismiss denied); In re 2TheMart.com Securities Litigation, 114 F. Supp. 2d 955 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (motion to dismiss denied); In re Irvine Sensors Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (motion to dismiss denied). The following represent just a few of the cases Mr. Godino is currently litigating in a leadership position: Small v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Case No. 13-00298 (D. Nev.); Courtright, et al., v. O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-334 (W.D. Mo); Keskinen v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., et al., Case No. 17-07721 (C.D. CA); Ryan v. Rodan & Fields, LLC, Case No. 18-02505 (N.D. Cal) MATTHEW M. HOUSTON, a partner in the firm’s New York office, graduated from Boston University School of Law in 1988. Mr. Houston is an active member of the Bar of the State of New York and an inactive member of the bar for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Houston is also admitted to the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of Massachusetts, and the Second, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. Mr. Houston repeatedly has been selected as a New York Metro Super Lawyer. Mr. Houston has substantial courtroom experience involving complex actions in federal and state courts throughout the country. Mr. Houston was co-lead trial counsel in one the few ERISA class action cases taken to trial asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against plan fiduciaries, Brieger et al. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 06-CV-01882 (N.D. Ill.), and has successfully prosecuted many ERISA actions, including In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities and ERISA Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:03-md-01539. Mr. Houston has been one of the principal attorneys litigating claims in multi-district litigation concerning employment classification of pickup and delivery drivers and primarily responsible for prosecuting ERISA class claims resulting in a $242,000,000 settlement; In re FedEx Ground Package Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, No. 3:05-MD-527 (MDL 1700). Mr. Houston recently presented argument before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of Florida pickup and delivery drivers obtaining a reversal of the lower court’s grant of summary judgment. Mr. Houston represented the interests of Nevada and Arkansas drivers employed by FedEx Ground obtaining significant recoveries on their behalf. Mr. Houston also served as lead counsel in multi-district class litigation seeking to modify insurance claims handling practices; In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefits Denial Actions, No. 1:03-cv-1000 (MDL 1552). Mr. Houston has played a principal role in numerous derivative and class actions wherein substantial benefits were conferred upon plaintiffs: In re: Groupon Derivative Litigation, No. 12-cv-5300 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (settlement of consolidated derivative action



resulting in sweeping corporate governance reform estimated at $159 million) Bangari v. Lesnik, et al., No. 11 CH 41973 (Illinois Circuit Court, County of Cook) (settlement of claim resulting in payment of $20 million to Career Education Corporation and implementation of extensive corporate governance reform); In re Diamond Foods, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. CGC-11-515895 (California Superior Court, County of San Francisco) ($10.4 million in monetary relief including a $5.4 million clawback of executive compensation and significant corporate governance reform); Pace American Shareholder Litigation, 94-92 TUC-RMB (securities fraud class action settlement resulting in a recovery of $3.75 million); In re Bay Financial Securities Litigation, Master File No. 89-2377-DPW, (D. Mass.) (J. Woodlock) (settlement of action based upon federal securities law claims resulting in class recovery in excess of $3.9 million); Goldsmith v. Technology Solutions Company, 92 C 4374 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (J. Manning) (recovery of $4.6 million as a result of action alleging false and misleading statements regarding revenue recognition). In addition to numerous employment and derivative cases, Mr. Houston has litigated actions asserting breach of fiduciary duty in the context of mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Houston has been responsible for securing millions of dollars in additional compensation and structural benefits for shareholders of target companies: In re Instinet Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 1289 (Delaware Court of Chancery); Jasinover v. The Rouse Company, Case No. 13-C-04-59594 (Maryland Circuit Court); McLaughlin v. Household International, Inc., Case No. 02 CH 20683 (Illinois Circuit Court); Sebesta v. The Quizno’s Corporation, Case No. 2001 CV 6281 (Colorado District Court); Crandon Capital Partners v. Sanford M. Kimmel, C.A. No. 14998 (Del. Ch.); and Crandon Capital Partners v. Kimmel, C.A. No. 14998 (Del. Ch. 1996) (J. Chandler) (settlement of an action on behalf of shareholders of Transnational Reinsurance Co. whereby acquiring company provided an additional $10.4 million in merger consideration). JASON L. KRAJCER is a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. He specializes in complex securities cases and has extensive experience in all phases of litigation (fact investigation, pre-trial motion practice, discovery, trial, appeal). Prior to joining Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mr. Krajcer was an Associate at Goodwin Procter LLP where he represented issuers, officers and directors in multi-hundred million and billion dollar securities cases. He began his legal career at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, where he represented issuers, officers and directors in securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and matters before the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. Mr. Krajcer is admitted to the State Bar of California, the Bar of the District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States District Courts for the Central and Southern Districts of California. SUSAN G. KUPFER is the founding partner of the Firm’s Berkeley office. Ms Kupfer joined the Firm in 2003. She is a native of New York City, and received her A.B. degree from Mount Holyoke College in 1969 and her Juris Doctor degree from Boston



University School of Law in 1973. She did graduate work at Harvard Law School and, in 1977, was named Assistant Dean and Director of Clinical Programs at Harvard, supervising and teaching in that program of legal practice and related academic components. For much of her legal career, Ms. Kupfer has been a professor of law. Her areas of academic expertise are Civil Procedure, Federal Courts, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, and Jurisprudence. She has taught at Harvard Law School, Hastings College of the Law, Boston University School of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, and Northeastern University School of Law. From 1991 through 2002, she was a lecturer on law at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall, teaching Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws. Her publications include articles on federal civil rights litigation, legal ethics, and jurisprudence. She has also taught various aspects of practical legal and ethical training, including trial advocacy, negotiation and legal ethics, to both law students and practicing attorneys. Ms. Kupfer previously served as corporate counsel to The Architects Collaborative in Cambridge and San Francisco, and was the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct. She returned to the practice of law in San Francisco with Morgenstein & Jubelirer and Berman DeValerio LLP before joining the Firm. Ms. Kupfer’s practice is concentrated in complex antitrust litigation. She currently serves, or has served, as Co-Lead Counsel in several multidistrict antitrust cases: In re Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2173, M.D. Fla. 2010); In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig. (D. ID. 2011); In re Korean Air Lines Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 1891, C.D. Cal. 2007); In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1616, D. Kan. 2004); In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Litigation (MDL 1566, D. Nev. 2005); and Sullivan et al v. DB Investments et al (D. N.J. 2004). She has been a member of the lead counsel teams that achieved significant settlements in: In re Sorbates Antitrust Litigation ($96.5 million settlement); In re Pillar Point Partners Antitrust Litigation ($50 million settlement); and In re Critical Path Securities Litigation ($17.5 million settlement). Ms. Kupfer is a member of the bar of Massachusetts and California, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California, the District of Massachusetts, the Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court. GREGORY B. LINKH works out of the New York office, where he litigates antitrust, securities, shareholder derivative, and consumer cases. Greg graduated from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1996 and from the University of Michigan Law School in 1999. While in law school, Greg externed with United States District Judge Gerald E. Rosen of the Eastern District of Michigan. Greg was previously associated with the law firms Dewey Ballantine LLP, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, and Murray Frank LLP.

Previously, Greg had significant roles in In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation (settled for $125 million); In re Crompton Corp. Securities Litigation (settled $11 million); Lowry v. Andrx Corp. (settled for $8 million); In re



Xybernaut Corp. Securities MDL Litigation (settled for $6.3 million); and In re EIS Int’l Inc. Securities Litigation (settled for $3.8 million). Greg also represented the West Virginia Investment Management Board (“WVIMB”) in WVIMB v. Residential Accredited Loans, Inc., et al., relating to the WVIMB's investment in residential mortgage-backed securities.

Currently, Greg is litigating various antitrust and securities cases, including In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, and In re Horsehead Holding Corp. Securities Litigation.

Greg is the co-author of Inherent Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Aug. 26, 2004); and Staying Derivative Action Pursuant to PSLRA and SLUSA, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, P. 4, COL. 4 (Oct. 21, 2005).

BRIAN MURRAY is the managing partner of the Firm's New York Park Avenue office and the head of the Firm's Antitrust Practice Group. He received Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees from the University of Notre Dame in 1983 and 1986, respectively. He received a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from St. John’s University School of Law in 1990. At St. John’s, he was the Articles Editor of the ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW. Mr. Murray co-wrote: Jurisdição Estrangeira Tem Papel Relevante Na De Fiesa De Investidores Brasileiros, ESPAÇA JURÍDICO BOVESPA (August 2008); The Proportionate Trading Model: Real Science or Junk Science?, 52 CLEVELAND ST. L. REV. 391 (2004-05); The Accident of Efficiency: Foreign Exchanges, American Depository Receipts, and Space Arbitrage, 51 BUFFALO L. REV. 383 (2003); You Shouldn’t Be Required To Plead More Than You Have To Prove, 53 BAYLOR L. REV. 783 (2001); He Lies, You Die: Criminal Trials, Truth, Perjury, and Fairness, 27 NEW ENGLAND J. ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONFINEMENT 1 (2001); Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Federal Securities Laws: The State of Affairs After Itoba, 20 MARYLAND J. OF INT’L L. AND TRADE 235 (1996); Determining Excessive Trading in Option Accounts: A Synthetic Valuation Approach, 23 U. DAYTON L. REV. 316 (1997); Loss Causation Pleading Standard, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Feb. 25, 2005); The PSLRA ‘Automatic Stay’ of Discovery, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (March 3, 2003); and Inherent Risk In Securities Cases In The Second Circuit, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Aug. 26, 2004). He also authored Protecting The Rights of International Clients in U.S. Securities Class Action Litigation, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION NEWS (Sept. 2007); Lifting the PSLRA “Automatic Stay” of Discovery, 80 N. DAK. L. REV. 405 (2004); Aftermarket Purchaser Standing Under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 73 ST. JOHN’S L. REV.633 (1999); Recent Rulings Allow Section 11 Suits By Aftermarket Securities Purchasers, NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Sept. 24, 1998); and Comment, Weissmann v. Freeman: The Second Circuit Errs in its Analysis of Derivative Copy-rights by Joint Authors, 63 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 771 (1989). Mr. Murray was on the trial team that prosecuted a securities fraud case under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Microdyne Corporation in the Eastern District of Virginia and he was also on the trial team that presented a claim under Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Artek Systems Corporation and Dynatach Group which settled midway through the trial.



Mr. Murray’s major cases include In re Horsehead Holding Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 16-cv-292, 2018 WL 4838234 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2018) (recommending denial of motion to dismiss securities fraud claims where company’s generic cautionary statements failed to adequately warn of known problems); In re Deutsche Bank Sec. Litig., --- F.R.D. ---, 2018 WL 4771525 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2018) (granting class certification for Securities Act claims and rejecting defendants’ argument that class representatives’ trading profits made them atypical class members); Robb v. Fitbit Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (denying motion to dismiss securities fraud claims where confidential witness statements sufficiently established scienter); In re Eagle Bldg. Tech. Sec. Litig., 221 F.R.D. 582 (S.D. Fla. 2004), 319 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (complaint against auditor sustained due to magnitude and nature of fraud; no allegations of a “tip-off” were necessary); In re Turkcell Iletisim A.S. Sec. Litig., 209 F.R.D. 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (defining standards by which investment advisors have standing to sue); In re Turkcell Iletisim A.S. Sec. Litig., 202 F. Supp. 2d 8 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (liability found for false statements in prospectus concerning churn rates); Feiner v. SS&C Tech., Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 1998) (qualified independent underwriters held liable for pricing of offering); Malone v. Microdyne Corp., 26 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 1994) (reversal of directed verdict for defendants); and Adair v. Bristol Tech. Systems, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (aftermarket purchasers have standing under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933). Mr. Murray also prevailed on an issue of first impression in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, in Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, in which the court applied the doctrine of continuous representation for statute of limitations purposes to accountants for the first time in Massachusetts. 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 367 (Mass. Super. Jan. 28, 1997). In addition, in Adair v. Microfield Graphics, Inc. (D. Or.), Mr. Murray settled the case for 47% of estimated damages. In the Qiao Xing Universal Telephone case, claimants received 120% of their recognized losses. Among his current cases, Mr. Murray represents a class of investors in a securities litigation involving preferred shares of Deutsche Bank and is lead counsel in a securities class action against Horsehead Holdings, Inc. in the District of Delaware. Mr. Murray served as a Trustee of the Incorporated Village of Garden City (2000-2002); Commissioner of Police for Garden City (2000-2001); Co-Chairman, Derivative Suits Subcommittee, American Bar Association Class Action and Derivative Suits Committee, (2007-2010); Member, Sports Law Committee, Association of the Bar for the City of New York, 1994-1997; Member, Litigation Committee, Association of the Bar for the City of New York, 2003-2007; Member, New York State Bar Association Committee on Federal Constitution and Legislation, 2005-2008; Member, Federal Bar Council, Second Circuit Committee, 2007-present. Mr. Murray has been a panelist at CLEs sponsored by the Federal Bar Council and the Institute for Law and Economic Policy, at the German-American Lawyers Association Annual Meeting in Frankfurt, Germany, and is a frequent lecturer before institutional investors in Europe and South America on the topic of class actions.



LESLEY F. PORTNOY represents domestic and international clients in securities litigation and class actions. Mr. Portnoy focuses his practice on recovering losses suffered by investors resulting corporate fraud and other wrongdoing. Mr. Portnoy has extensive experience litigating complex cases in state and federal courts nationwide, and previously served as counsel to investors in the Bernard L. Madoff securities, assisting the SIPC trustee Irving Picard in recovering assets on behalf of defrauded investors. During law school, he worked in the New York Supreme Court Commercial Division, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the New York City Law Department. Mr. Portnoy has represented pro bono clients in New York and California.

ROBERT V. PRONGAY is a partner in the Firm’s Los Angeles office where he focuses on the investigation, initiation, and prosecution of complex securities cases on behalf of institutional and individual investors. Mr. Prongay’s practice concentrates on actions to recover investment losses resulting from violations of the federal securities laws and various actions to vindicate shareholder rights in response to corporate and fiduciary misconduct.

Mr. Prongay has extensive experience litigating complex cases in state and federal courts nationwide. Since joining the Firm, Mr. Prongay has successfully recovered millions of dollars for investors victimized by securities fraud and has negotiated the implementation of significant corporate governance reforms aimed at preventing the recurrence of corporate wrongdoing.

Mr. Prongay was recently recognized as one of thirty lawyers included in the Daily Journal’s list of Top Plaintiffs Lawyers in California for 2017. Several of Mr. Prongay’s cases have received national and regional press coverage. Mr. Prongay has been interviewed by journalists and writers for national and industry publications, ranging from The Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Mr. Prongay has appeared as a guest on Bloomberg Television where he was interviewed about the securities litigation stemming from the high-profile initial public offering of Facebook, Inc.

Mr. Prongay received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the University of Southern California and his Juris Doctor degree from Seton Hall University School of Law. Mr. Prongay is also an alumnus of the Lawrenceville School.

DANIELLA QUITT, a partner in the firm’s New York office, graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 1988, is a member of the Bar of the State of New York, and is also admitted to the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits.

Ms. Quitt has extensive experience in successfully litigating complex class actions from inception to trial and has played a significant role in numerous actions wherein substantial benefits were conferred upon plaintiff shareholders, such as In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Stockholders Litigation, (D.S.C.) (settlement fund of $44.5 million); In re



Laidlaw Stockholders Litigation, (D.S.C.) (settlement fund of $24 million); In re UNUMProvident Corp. Securities Litigation, (D. Me.) (settlement fund of $45 million); In re Harnischfeger Industries (E.D. Wisc.) (settlement fund of $10.1 million); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Derivative Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement benefit of $13.7 million and corporate therapeutics); In re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement fund of $37 million); In re Home Shopping Network, Inc., Derivative Litigation, (S.D. Fla.) (settlement benefit in excess of $20 million); In re Graham-Field Health Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement fund of $5.65 million); Benjamin v. Carusona, (E.D.N.Y.) (prosecuted action on behalf of minority shareholders which resulted in a change of control from majority-controlled management at Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd.); In re Rexel Shareholder Litigation, (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) (settlement benefit in excess of $38 million); and Croyden Assoc. v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp., et al., (Del. Ch.) (settlement benefit of $19.2 million).

In connection with the settlement of Alessi v. Beracha, (Del. Ch.), a class action brought on behalf of the former minority shareholders of Earthgrains, Chancellor Chandler commented: “I give credit where credit is due, Ms. Quitt. You did a good job and got a good result, and you should be proud of it.”@

Ms. Quitt has focused her practice on shareholder rights and ERISA class actions but also handles general commercial and consumer litigation. Ms. Quitt serves as a member of the S.D.N.Y. ADR Panel and has been consistently selected as a New York Metro Super Lawyer.

JONATHAN M. ROTTER leads the Firm’s intellectual property litigation practice. He recently served for three years as the first Patent Pilot Program Law Clerk at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, both in Los Angeles and Orange County. There, he assisted the Honorable S. James Otero, Andrew J. Guilford, George H. Wu, John A. Kronstadt, and Beverly Reid O’Connell with hundreds of patent cases in every major field of technology, from complaint to post-trial motions. Mr. Rotter also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Milan D. Smith, Jr. on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Before his service to the court, Mr. Rotter practiced at an international law firm, where he argued appeals at the Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and California Court of Appeal, tried cases, argued motions, and managed all aspects of complex litigation. He also served as a volunteer criminal prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. His cases have involved diverse technologies in both “wet” and “dry” disciplines, and he excels at the critical skill of translating complex subject matter into a coherent story that can be digested by judges and juries.

In addition to intellectual property matters, Mr. Rotter litigates consumer protection, healthcare, antitrust, and securities class actions. Mr. Rotter handles cases on contingency, partial contingency, and hourly bases. He works collaboratively with other lawyers and law firms across the country.



Mr. Rotter graduated with honors from Harvard Law School in 2004. He served as an editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, and was a Fellow in Law and Economics at the John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, and a Fellow in Justice, Welfare, and Economics at the Weatherhead Center For International Affairs. He graduated with honors from the University of California, San Diego in 2000 with a B.S. in molecular biology and a B.A. in music.

Mr. Rotter serves on the Merit Selection Panel for Magistrate Judges in the Central District of California, and the Model Patent Jury Instructions and Model Patent Local Rules subcommittees of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. He has written extensively on intellectual property issues, and has been honored for his work with legal service organizations. He is admitted to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Ninth and Federal Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California.

KEVIN F. RUF graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Michigan. He was an associate at the Los Angeles firm Manatt Phelps and Phillips from 1988 until 1992, where he specialized in commercial litigation. In 1993, he joined the firm Corbin & Fitzgerald (with future federal district court Judge Michael Fitzgerald) specializing in white collar criminal defense work. Kevin joined the Glancy firm in 2001 and is the head of the firm’s Labor practice. Kevin has successfully argued a number of important appeals, including in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He has twice argued cases before the California Supreme Court – winning both. In Smith v. L'Oreal (2006), the California Supreme Court established a fundamental right of all California workers to immediate payment of all earnings at the conclusion of their employment. The second California Supreme Court case, Lee v. Dynamex (2018), has been called a “blockbuster” and “bombshell” as it altered 30 years of California law and established a new definition of employment that brings more workers within the protections of California’s Labor Code. Kevin has been named one of California’s “Top 75 Employment Lawyers” by the Daily Journal. He has consistently been named a “Super Lawyer.” Since 2014, Kevin has been an elected member of the Ojai Unified School District Board of Trustees. Kevin was also a Main Company Member of the world-famous Groundlings improv and sketch comedy troupe – “where everyone else got famous.” BENJAMIN I. SACHS-MICHAELS, a partner in the firm’s New York office, graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2011. His practice focuses on shareholder derivative litigation and class actions on behalf of shareholders and consumers. While in law school, Mr. Sachs-Michaels served as a judicial intern to Senior United States District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy in the United States District Court for the



Northern District of New York and was a member of the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. Mr. Sachs-Michaels is a member of the Bar of the State of New York. He is also admitted to the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. CASEY E. SADLER is a native of New York, New York. After graduating from the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Mr. Sadler joined the Firm in 2010. While attending law school, Mr. Sadler externed for the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission, spent a summer working for P.H. Parekh & Co. – one of the leading appellate law firms in New Delhi, India – and was a member of USC's Hale Moot Court Honors Program. Mr. Sadler’s practice focuses on securities and consumer litigation. A partner in the Firm’s Los Angeles office, Mr. Sadler is admitted to the State Bar of California and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts of California. EX KANO S. SAMS II earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of California Los Angeles. Mr. Sams earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, where he served as a member of the UCLA Law Review. After law school, Mr. Sams practiced class action civil rights litigation on behalf of plaintiffs. Subsequently, Mr. Sams was a partner at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (currently Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP), where his practice focused on securities and consumer class actions on behalf of investors and consumers. During his career, Mr. Sams has served as lead counsel in dozens of securities class actions and complex-litigation cases throughout the United States. Mr. Sams was one of the counsel for respondents in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Employees Ret. Fund, No. 15-1439, 2018 WL 1384564 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2018), 583 U.S. ___ (2018), in which the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of respondents, holding that: (1) the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) does not strip state courts of jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act of 1933; and (2) SLUSA does not empower defendants to remove such actions from state to federal court. Mr. Sams also participated in a successful appeal before a Fifth Circuit panel that included former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sitting by designation, in which the court unanimously vacated the lower court’s denial of class certification, reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, and issued an important decision on the issue of loss causation in securities litigation: Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corp., 572 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009). The case settled for $55 million. Mr. Sams has also obtained other significant results. Notable examples include: In re King Digital Entm’t plc S’holder Litig., No. CGC-15-544770 (San Francisco Superior Court) (case settled for $18.5 million); In re Castlight Health, Inc. S’holder Litig., Lead



Case No. CIV533203 (California Superior Court, County of San Mateo) (case settled for $9.5 million); Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., Master File No. CIV517185 (California Superior Court, County of San Mateo) (case settled for $8.5 million); In re CafePress Inc. S’holder Litig., Master File No. CIV522744 (California Superior Court, County of San Mateo) (case settled for $8 million); Robinson v. Audience, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-232227 (California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara) (case settled for $6,050,000); Estate of Gardner v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 3:13-cv-1918 (JBA), 2016 WL 806823 (D. Conn. Mar. 1, 2016) (granting class certification); Forbush v. Goodale, No. 33538/2011, 2013 WL 582255 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 4, 2013) (denying motions to dismiss in a shareholder derivative action); Curry v. Hansen Med., Inc., No. C 09-5094 CW, 2012 WL 3242447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (upholding securities fraud complaint; case settled for $8.5 million); Wilkof v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 280 F.R.D. 332 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (granting class certification); Puskala v. Koss Corp., 799 F. Supp. 2d 941 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (upholding securities fraud complaint); Mishkin v. Zynex Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM, 2011 WL 1158715 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss securities fraud complaint); and Tsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp., No. CV-07-02204-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 2151838 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2009) (granting class certification; case settled for $10 million).

Additionally, Mr. Sams has successfully represented consumers in class action litigation. Mr. Sams worked on nationwide litigation and a trial against major tobacco companies, and in statewide tobacco litigation that resulted in a $12.5 billion recovery for California cities and counties in a landmark settlement. He also was a principal attorney in a consumer class action against one of the largest banks in the country that resulted in a substantial recovery and a change in the company’s business practices. Mr. Sams also participated in settlement negotiations on behalf of environmental organizations along with the United States Department of Justice and the Ohio Attorney General’s Office that resulted in a consent decree requiring a company to perform remediation measures to address the effects of air and water pollution. Additionally, Mr. Sams has been an author or co-author of several articles in major legal publications, including “9th Circuit Decision Clarifies Securities Fraud Loss Causation Rule” published in the February 8, 2018 issue of the Daily Journal, and “Market Efficiency in the World of High-Frequency Trading” published in the December 26, 2017 issue of the Daily Journal.

KARA M. WOLKE is a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Ms. Wolke specializes in complex litigation, including the prosecution of securities fraud, derivative, consumer, and wage and hour class actions. She has extensive experience in written appellate advocacy in both State and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and has successfully argued before the Court of Appeals for the State of California. With over a decade of experience in financial class action litigation, Ms. Wolke has helped to recover hundreds of millions of dollars for injured investors, consumers, and employees. Notable cases include: Farmington Hills Employees’ Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 10-4372 (D. Minn.) ($62.5 million settlement on behalf of participants in Wells Fargo’s securities lending program. The settlement was reached on the eve of trial and ranked among the largest recoveries achieved in a securities



lending class action stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.); Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al. (Conseco), Case No. 02-cv-1332 (S.D. Ind.) ($41.5 million securities class action settlement); Lapin v. Goldman Sachs, Case No. 03-850 (S.D.N.Y.) ($29 million securities class action settlement); In Re: Mannkind Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 11-929 (C.D. Cal) (approximately $22 million settlement - $16 million in cash plus stock); Jenson v. First Trust Corp., Case No. 05-3124 (C.D. Cal.) ($8.5 million settlement of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against trust company on behalf of a class of elderly investors); and Pappas v. Naked Juice Co., Case No. 11-08276 (C.D. Cal.) ($9 million settlement in consumer class action alleging misleading labeling of juice products as “All Natural”). With a background in intellectual property, Ms. Wolke was a part of the team of lawyers who successfully challenged the claim of copyright ownership to the song “Happy Birthday to You” on behalf of artists and filmmakers who had been forced to pay hefty licensing fees to publicly sing the world’s most famous song. In the resolution of that action, the defendant music publishing company funded a settlement of $14 million and, significantly, agreed to relinquish the song to the public domain. Previously, Ms. Wolke penned an article regarding the failure of U.S. Copyright Law to provide an important public performance right in sound recordings, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 411, which was nationally recognized and received an award by the American Bar Association and the Grammy® Foundation. Committed to the provision of legal services to the poor, disadvantaged, and other vulnerable or disenfranchised individuals and groups, Ms. Wolke also oversees the Firm’s pro bono practice. Ms. Wolke currently serves as a volunteer attorney for KIND (Kids In Need of Defense), representing unaccompanied immigrant and refugee children in custody and deportation proceedings, and helping them to secure legal permanent residency status in the U.S. Ms. Wolke graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Economics from The Ohio State University in 2001. She subsequently earned her J.D. (with honors) from Ohio State, where she was active in Moot Court and received the Dean’s Award for Excellence during each of her three years. Ms. Wolke is admitted to the State Bar of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts of California. She lives with her husband and two sons in Los Angeles.

OF COUNSEL MARK S. GREENSTONE specializes in consumer, financial fraud and employment-related class actions. Possessing significant law and motion and trial experience, Mr. Greenstone has represented clients in multi-million dollar disputes in California state and federal courts, as well as the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.



Mr. Greenstone received his training as an associate at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP where he specialized in complex business litigation relating to investment management, government contracts and real estate. Upon leaving Sheppard Mullin, Mr. Greenstone founded an internet-based company offering retail items on multiple platforms nationwide. He thereafter returned to law bringing a combination of business and legal skills to his practice. Mr. Greenstone graduated Order of the Coif from the UCLA School of Law. He also received his undergraduate degree in Political Science from UCLA, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude and was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. Mr. Greenstone is a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, the Santa Monica Bar Association and the Beverly Hills Bar Association. He is admitted to practice in state and federal courts throughout California. ROBERT I. HARWOOD, Of Counsel to the firm, graduated from William and Mary Law School in 1971, and has specialized in securities law and securities litigation since beginning his career in 1972 at the Enforcement Division of the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Harwood was a founding member of Harwood Feffer LLP. He has prosecuted numerous securities, class, derivative, and ERISA actions. He is a member of the Trial Lawyers’ Section of the New York State Bar Association and has served as a guest lecturer at trial advocacy programs sponsored by the Practicing Law Institute. In a statewide survey of his legal peers published by Super Lawyers Magazine, Mr. Harwood has been consistently selected as a “New York Metro Super Lawyer.” Super Lawyers are the top five percent of attorneys in New York, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research. He is also a Member of the Board of Directors of the MFY Legal Services Inc., which provides free legal representation in civil matters to the poor and the mentally ill in New York City. Since 1999, Mr. Harwood has also served as a Village Justice for the Village of Dobbs Ferry, New York. Commenting on Mr. Harwood’s abilities, in In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA Litigation, (D.N.J.), Judge Bissell stated:

the Court knows the attorneys in the firms involved in this matter and they are highly experienced and highly skilled in matters of this kind. Moreover, in this case it showed. Those efforts were vigorous, imaginative and prompt in reaching the settlement of this matter with a minimal amount of discovery . . . . So both skill and efficiency were brought to the table here by counsel, no doubt about that.

Likewise, Judge Hurley stated in connection with In re Olsten Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 97 CV-5056 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2001), wherein a settlement fund of $24.1 million was created: “The quality of representation here I think has been excellent.” Mr. Harwood was lead attorney in Meritt v. Eckerd, No. 86 Civ. 1222 (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 1986), where then Chief Judge Weinstein observed that counsel conducted the litigation with “speed and skill” resulting in a settlement having a value “in the order of $20 Million Dollars.” Mr. Harwood prosecuted the Hoeniger v. Aylsworth class action litigation in



the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (No. SA-86-CA-939), which resulted in a settlement fund of $18 million and received favorable comment in the August 14, 1989 edition of The Wall Street Journal (“Prospector Fund Finds Golden Touch in Class Action Suit” p. 18, col. 1). Mr. Harwood served as co-lead counsel in In Re Interco Incorporated Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10111 (Delaware Chancery Court) (May 25, 1990), resulting in a settlement of $18.5 million, where V.C. Berger found, “This is a case that has an extensive record that establishes it was very hard fought. There were intense efforts made by plaintiffs’ attorneys and those efforts bore very significant fruit in the face of serious questions as to ultimate success on the merits.” Mr. Harwood served as lead counsel in Morse v. McWhorter (Columbia/HCA Healthcare Securities Litigation), (M.D. Tenn.), in which a settlement fund of $49.5 million was created for the benefit of the Class, as well as In re Bank One Securities Litigation, (N.D. Ill.), which resulted in the creation of a $45 million settlement fund. Mr. Harwood also served as co-lead counsel in In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Stockholders Litigation, (D.S.C.), which resulted in a settlement fund of $44.5 million; In re Laidlaw Stockholders Litigation, (D.S.C.), which resulted in a settlement fund of $24 million; In re AIG ERISA Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a settlement fund of $24.2 million; In re JWP Inc. Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a $37 million settlement fund; In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Derivative Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a settlement benefit of $13.7 million and corporate therapeutics; and In re UNUMProvident Corp. Securities Litigation, (D. Me.), which resulted in the creation of settlement fund of $45 million. Mr. Harwood has also been one of the lead attorneys in litigating claims in In re FedEx Ground Package Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, No. 3:05-MD-527 (MDL 1700), a multi-district litigation concerning employment classification of pickup and delivery drivers which resulted in a $242,000,000 settlement. STAN KARAS of counsel in the Los Angeles office, is an experienced class action attorney, who works on every stage of such cases from pleading challenges to class certification proceedings to trial and appeal. He is also an experienced trial lawyer, including as first chair. Among other successes, he obtained a $3 million jury verdict for a client, along with a finding that the defendant was liable for punitive damages. In another trial, the court granted non-suit in favor of Stan’s client after he delivered the opening argument. Mr. Karas started his legal career at Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker, where he handled complex commercial and real estate litigation. Subsequently, he joined Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, where he specialized in class actions, both on the plaintiff and the defense side, as well as intellectual property litigation. Mr. Karas then worked at a plaintiff-side class action firm where he obtained tens of millions of dollars in settlements on behalf of his clients. Mr. Karas is a graduate of Stanford University, where he received a degree in History and Literature and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley. In law school, Mr. Karas served as Articles Editor of the California Law Review and Notes and Comments Editor of the Berkeley Technology



Law Journal. Mr. Karas has published on class action and privacy law issues including Privacy, Identity, Databases, 52 Am. U. L. Rev. 393 (2002) and The Role of Fluid Recovery in Consumer Protection Litigation, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 959 (2002).

ASSOCIATES GRAHAM CLEGG received his LLB in 1988 from the Manchester University School of Law in England, with Honors. He was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2002. Mr. Clegg has significant experience in the prosecution of class claims, including In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, which settled for $185 million. CHRISTOPHER FALLON focuses on securities, consumer, and anti-trust litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Fallon was a contract attorney with O'Melveny & Myers LLP working on anti-trust and business litigation disputes. He is a Certified E-Discovery Specialist through the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS). Mr. Fallon earned his J.D. and a Certificate in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine Law School in 2004. While attending law school, Christopher worked at the Pepperdine Special Education Advocacy Clinic and interned with the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General. Prior to attending law school, he graduated from Boston College with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and a minor in Irish Studies, then served as Deputy Campaign Finance Director on a U.S. Senate campaign. ROBERT H. GRUBER is an associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office and focuses on class action litigation. He has experience with all stages of complex litigation, including extensive trial and arbitration experience. Mr. Gruber started his career at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, where he litigated class actions, intellectual property disputes, and products liability suits (both on the plaintiff and the defense side). Mr. Gruber also focused on building the firm’s “drone law” practice group, assisting clients seeking authorization to conduct research and development involving unmanned aircraft. Mr. Gruber received his B.A. from Yale University and his J.D. from the UCLA School of Law. In law school, he served as Managing Articles Editor for the Journal of Law and Technology and worked as an extern for the Honorable Margaret M. Morrow, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California. MEHRDAUD JAFARNIA received his J.D. in 2001 from Southwestern University School of Law, having earlier earned a B.A. in Political Science/International Relations from the University of California at Los Angeles (UC Regents Merit Scholarship Award and the Vance Burch Scholarship). Mr. Jafarnia served as a Staff Attorney for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and has represented financial institutions in adversary and evidentiary proceedings in the Bankruptcy Courts. THOMAS J. KENNEDY works out of the New York office, where he focuses on securities, antitrust, mass torts, and consumer litigation. He received a Juris Doctor



degree from St. John’s University School of Law in 1995. At St. John’s, he was a member of the ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF LEGAL COMMENTARY. Mr. Kennedy graduated from Miami University in 1992 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting and has passed the CPA exam. Mr. Kennedy was previously associated with the law firm Murray Frank LLP. JENNIFER M. LEINBACH served for nearly five years as a judicial law clerk for a number of judges in the Central District of California. As a judicial law clerk, Ms. Leinbach was responsible for assisting these judges with case management, preparing for hearings and trial, and drafting rulings. Ms. Leinbach worked on a variety of different cases, including cases involving financial fraud, insolvency and complex civil litigation. Ms. Leinbach was also responsible for assisting those judges, sitting by designation, on appellate cases. Ms. Leinbach graduated magna cum laude from Vermont Law School and was a member of Vermont Law Review, where she focused on environmental law issues. During law school, Ms. Leinbach served as a judicial extern in the District of Vermont. She obtained her undergraduate degree cum laude from Pepperdine University. CHARLES H. LINEHAN graduated summa cum laude from the University of California, Los Angeles with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and a minor in Mathematics. Mr. Linehan received his Juris Doctor degree from the UCLA School of Law, where he was a member of the UCLA Moot Court Honors Board. While attending law school, Mr. Linehan participated in the school’s First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic (now the Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic) where he worked with nationally recognized scholars and civil rights organizations to draft amicus briefs on various Free Speech issues. DANIELLE L. MANNING is a litigation associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Ms. Manning specializes in prosecuting complex class action lawsuits, including securities fraud and consumer class actions. Ms. Manning has experience in all phases of pre-trial litigation, including conducting fact investigation, drafting pleadings, researching and drafting briefs in the context of law and motion practice, drafting and responding to discovery requests, assisting with deposition preparation, and preparing for and negotiating settlements. Ms. Manning is admitted to the State Bar of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States District Courts for the Central and Northern Districts of California. Ms. Manning received her Juris Doctor degree from the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, where she served as Chief Managing Editor of the Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. While attending law school, Ms. Manning externed for the Honorable Laurie D. Zelon in the California Court of Appeal and interned for the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. Ms. Manning received her Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in Environmental Analysis from Claremont McKenna College.



VAHE MESROPYAN joined the firm in 2018 and focuses his practice on litigating securities class actions. Immediately prior to joining the firm, Mr. Mesropyan served as a judicial law clerk for multiple judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Prior to his clerkship, Mr. Mesropyan was an associate at Crowell & Moring LLP, where he represented Fortune 500 companies in complex antitrust matters. Mr. Mesropyan received his J.D. from the University of California, Irvine School of Law as a Dean’s Merit Scholarship recipient. While in law school, he clerked for the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Protection Unit and served as an extern for the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel. NATALIE S. PANG is an associate in the firm's Los Angeles office. Ms. Pang has advocated on behalf of thousands of consumers during her career. Ms. Pang has extensive experience in case management and all facets of litigation: from a case’s inception through the discovery process--including taking and defending depositions and preparing witnesses for depositions and trial--mediation and settlement negotiations, pretrial motion work, trial and post-trial motion work. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Pang lead the mass torts department of her last firm, where she managed the cases of over two thousand individual clients. There, Ms. Pang worked on a wide variety of complex state and federal matters which included cases involving pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices, auto defects, toxic torts, false advertising, and uninhabitable conditions. Ms. Pang was also trial counsel in the notable case, Celestino Acosta et al. v. City of Long Beach et al. (BC591412) which was brought on behalf of residents of a mobile home park built on a former trash dump and resulted in a $39.5 million verdict after an eleven-week jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court. Ms. Pang received her J.D. from Loyola Law School. While in law school, Ms. Pang received a Top 10 Brief Award as a Scott Moot Court competitor, was chosen to be a member of the Scott Moot Court Honor's Board, and competed as a member of the National Moot Court Team. Ms. Pang was also a Staffer and subsequently an Editor for Loyola's Entertainment Law Review as well as a Loyola Writing Tutor. During law school, Ms. Pang served as an extern for: the Hon. Rolf Treu (Los Angeles Superior Court), the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, and the Federal Public Defender's Office. Ms. Pang obtained her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California and worked in the healthcare industry prior to pursuing her career in law. JARED F. PITT focuses on securities, consumer, and anti-trust litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Pitt was an associate at Willoughby Doyle LLP and was a senior financial statement auditor for KMPG LLP where he earned his CPA license. Mr. Pitt earned his J.D. from Loyola Law School in 2010. Prior to attending law school he graduated with honors from both the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and USC’s Marshall School of Business where he received a Masters of Accounting.



PAVITHRA RAJESH is an associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Ms. Rajesh graduated from University of California, Santa Barbara with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. She received her Juris Doctor degree from UCLA School of Law. Ms. Rajesh has unique writing experience from her judicial externship for the Patent Pilot Program in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where she worked closely with the Clerk and judges in the program on patent cases. While in law school, Ms. Rajesh was an Associate Editor for the UCLA Law Review. NOREEN R. SCOTT received her J.D. in 2002 from Tulane Law School and earned a B.A. in Economics from Emory University in 1999. She served as a law clerk to the Hon. Charles R. Jones on the Louisiana State Court of Appeal, and has extensive experience prosecuting complex class action cases. LEANNE HEINE SOLISH is an associate in GPM’s Los Angeles office. Her practice focuses on complex securities litigation. Ms. Solish has extensive experience litigating complex cases in federal courts nationwide. Since joining GPM in 2012, Ms. Solish has helped secure several large class action settlements for injured investors, including: The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 10-4372--DWF/JJG (D. Minn.) ($62.5 million settlement on behalf of participants in Wells Fargo’s securities lending program. The settlement was reached on the eve of trial and ranked among the largest recoveries achieved in a securities lending class action stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.); In re Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06046-JGK (S.D.N.Y.) ($19 million settlement for the U.S. shareholder class as part of a $39 million global settlement); In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana), Case No. 1:14-cv-01599-TWP-DML ($12.5375 million settlement); In re Doral Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01393-GAG (D.P.R.) ($7 million settlement); Larson v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Lead Case No. 14-cv-01043-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) ($6.125 million settlement); In re Unilife Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-03976-RA ($4.4 million settlement); and In re Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00338-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.) ($3.5 million settlement). Super Lawyers Magazine has selected Ms. Solish as a “Rising Star” in the area of Securities Litigation for the past three consecutive years, 2016 through 2018. Ms. Solish is admitted to the State Bar of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California. Ms. Solish is also a Registered Certified Public Accountant in Illinois. Ms. Solish received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2011, where she was an editor of the Texas International Law Journal, represented clients in both the Immigration and Worker Rights student clinics, and interned with MALDEF and the Texas Civil Rights Project. Ms. Solish graduated summa cum laude from Tulane University with a B.S.M. in Accounting and Finance in 2007, where she was a member



of the Beta Alpha Psi honors accounting organization and was inducted into the Beta Gamma Sigma Business Honors Society. GARTH A. SPENCER is based in the New York office. His work includes securities, antitrust, and consumer litigation. Mr. Spencer also works on whistleblower matters. Mr. Spencer received his B.A. in Mathematics from Grinnell College in 2006. He received his J.D. in 2011 from Duke University School of Law, where he was a staff editor on the Duke Law Journal. From 2011 until 2014 he worked in the tax group of a large, international law firm. Since 2014 he has worked on tax whistleblower matters. Mr. Spencer received his LL.M. in Taxation from New York University in 2016 immediately prior to joining the firm. DANA K. VINCENT received her J.D. in 2002 from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington D.C. and her B.A. cum laude from Spellman College in 1995. Dana also earned an M.A. in Economics from the New School in 1999, where she was the Aaron Diamond Fellow. Ms. Vincent has served as a Law Clerk to the Hon. Sterling Johnson, Jr. of Brooklyn, NY, and has significant experience in the New York Office of the Attorney General where she served as an Assistant Attorney General from 2003-2006. She was a consultant to the Marshall Project, an online journalism organization focusing on U.S. Criminal Justice issues. MELISSA WRIGHT is a litigation associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Ms. Wright specializes in complex litigation, including the prosecution of securities fraud and consumer class actions. She has particular expertise in all aspects of the discovery phase of litigation, including drafting and responding to discovery requests, negotiating protocols for the production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and all facets of ESI discovery, and assisting in deposition preparation. She has managed multiple document production and review projects, including the development of ESI search terms, overseeing numerous attorneys reviewing large document productions, drafting meet and confer correspondence and motions to compel where necessary, and coordinating the analysis of information procured during the discovery phase for utilization in substantive motions or settlement negotiations. Ms. Wright received her J.D. from the UC Davis School of Law in 2012, where she was a board member of Tax Law Society and externed for the California Board of Equalization’s Tax Appeals Assistance Program focusing on consumer use tax issues. Ms. Wright also graduated from NYU School of Law, where she received her LL.M. in Taxation in 2013.


Exhibit 3


EXHIBIT 1


KCC Class Action Services Resume

KCC is an industry leader in class action settlement administration. We administer claims processes and distribute funds in a vast array of varying matters, ranging from small and simple settlements to multi-year complex settlements involving millions of claimants. KCC’s parent company, Computershare, is a $5 billion publicly-traded company which, among its many business lines, provides global financial services centering on communications with customers on behalf of our corporate clients. Computershare employs over 12,000 people and does business with more than 30,000 clients in more than 20 countries. KCC’s operations are regulated by federal agencies, including both the SEC and OCC. KCC has the largest infrastructure in the class action industry, and is backed by superior data security, call center support and technology. In addition to the immense resources and capabilities brought to bear through Computershare, KCC can execute all operations in-house with zero outsourcing; a capacity which allows for full quality control over each aspect of service. KCC has administered over 6,000 class action settlements and handled thousands of distribution engagements in other contexts as well. Our domestic infrastructure includes call centers with over 1,200 seats, claims intake facilities that can open and scan 200,000 claims in a single day, and document production capabilities that print and mail millions of documents annually. Last year, our disbursement services team distributed over half a trillion dollars. Locations KCC has an administrative office in El Segundo, CA and an operations office in San Rafael, CA. In addition to these offices, KCC has the global support of Computershare. In the United States, Computershare has more than 20 offices. KCC Personnel KCC’s experienced team of experts knows first-hand the intricacies contained in every aspect of settlement administration, and approach each matter with careful analysis and procedural integrity. Each client is assigned a team of experienced consultants, specialists and technology experts who serve as knowledgeable, reliable and accessible partners that have earned a reputation for exceeding clients’ expectations. KCC’s executive team – Gerry Mullins, President; James Le, Chief Operating Officer; Patrick Ivie, Senior Executive Vice President; and Patrick Passarella, Senior Vice President – are experienced industry leaders. Our personnel have considerable experience which includes years of practice with KCC and related endeavors. KCC’s professionals have extensive training, both on-the-job and formal, such as undergraduate and advanced business, information technology and law degrees, and they possess and/or have had licenses and certificates in disciplines that are relevant to class action administration. Recognition Our high-quality, cost-effective notice and settlement administration services have been

recognized by The National Law Journal, The New York Law Journal, The New Jersey Law

Journal, The Recorder, Legal Intelligencer, Legal Times and other leading publications. KCC

has earned the trust and confidence of our clients with our track record as a highly-responsive

partner.


Settlement Value

Case Value

Vaccarino v. Midland National Life Ins. Co $555,000,000

Safeco v. AIG $450,000,000

In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Stockholder Litigation $275,000,000

Harborview MBS $275,000,000

In re Medical Capital Securities Litigation Settlement $219,000,000

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A $203,000,000

Bell v. Farmers - Bell III $170,000,000

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch $160,000,000

Haddock v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co. Settlement $140,000,000

Miramonte Qualified Settlement Fund $139,500,000

In re Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. Derivative Litigation Notice $137,500,000

Smokeless Tobacco Cases $96,000,000

Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens $92,865,000

Ormond, et al, v. Anthem, Inc. $90,000,000

In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation $87,750,000

Ideal v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP $85,000,000

Willoughby v. DT Credit Corporation, et al. (Drivetime) $78,000,000

Bank of America Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation $73,000,000

WaMu TIA $69,000,000

Abarca v. and Hernandez v. Merck & Co., Inc. $60,000,000

Ideal v. BP America $55,000,000

In re Apple iPhone/iPod Warranty Litigation $53,000,000

eMachine Consumer Settlement $50,000,000

Ralphs Restitution Fund $50,000,000

Dahlin v. Sav-on Drug Stores II $47,500,000

Hageman v. AT&T Mobility LLC $45,000,000

Judd, et al. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., et al. $45,000,000

Salvas, et al. v. Wal-Mart, et al. $40,000,000

Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc. $40,000,000

Amador v. California Culinary Academy II $40,000,000

In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation $40,000,000

Richmond Manor Apts, Inc. et al. v. Lloyd’s London $39,000,000

Staples Overtime Cases (manager class) $38,000,000

Weir v. 24 Hour Fitness USA II $37,000,000

Demmick v. Cellco Partnership $36,700,000

Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. - Settlement Phase $36,412,350


Class Members

Case Volume

Cassese v. WashingtonMutual 23,200,344

Gordon v. Verizon Communications, Inc. 15,236,046

Discover TCPA 9,830,433

Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. 8,639,226

Shames v. The Hertz Corporation 7,271,238

In re MagSafe Power Adapter Litigation 5,293,952

Raab v. Waddell and The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles 4,677,968

Couser v Comenity Bank 4,115,621

Apple Purchase Litigation 3,548,612

Walter, et al. v. Hughes Communications, Inc., et al. 2,792,574

Cappalli v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. 2,767,358

Shurtleff v. Health Net of California, Inc. 2,529,949

Nicole Newman v. AmeriCredit Financial Services 2,033,588

eMachine Consumer Settlement 1,632,749

Szymczak v. Nissan North America 1,591,316

Demmick v. Cellco Partnership 1,484,634

Ryan v. Snackable Media 1,358,168

Sobel, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation II 1,234,939

In re Apple iPhone/iPod Warranty Litigation 1,216,177

Lees v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. 1,125,415

Ormond, et al, v. Anthem, Inc. 1,064,668

In re JP Morgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litigation 1,055,375

Ledet v. Ascentive LLC 989,674

Sherman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 947,698

Luster v. Duncan Solutions, Inc. 938,619

Sobel, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation 890,684

Bostick v. Herbalife International of America Inc et al. 861,779

Pollack v. Incrowd, Inc. 853,612

Banks v. Nissan North America, Inc. - Settlement 847,569

Roberts, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. 784,453

In re Google Inc. Class C Shareholder Litigation 778,095

Bowers, et al. v. Windstream Kentucky East, LLC, et al. 748,912

Milligan v. Toyota Motor Sales 727,554

Groveunder v. WellPoint 709,016

In re Hypodermic Products Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation 603,228

Chambers v. Weber-Stephen Products LLC 589,169


barnow and associates, p.c. the coffman law firm … › media › 2389177 › 003243...jeremiah...

Documents