kyung cho, et al. v. ucbh holdings, inc., et al. 09-cv...

Case3:09-cv-04208-JSW Documentl 76 Fileddl /07/11 Pagel of 18

Laurence M. Rosen (SBN # 219683)1 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.2 333 South Grand Avenue, 25 th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 900713 Telephone: (213) 785-2610

Facsimile: (213) 226-46844 Email: [email protected]

5and

6Phillip Kim, Esq. (pro hac vice)

7 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.8 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor

New York, New York 100169 Telephone: (212) 686-1060

Facsimile: (212) 202-382710 Email: pkintleirosenleoal.com

11Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

12UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15 KYUNG CHO; REX DECHAKUL; AND DAVID )HWANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF ) Case No. CV-09-4208-JSW

16 OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ) CV-09-4429-JSW

17 Plaintiffs,) CV-09-4449-JSW) CV-09-4505-JSW

18 vs. ) CV-09-451345W)

19 ) PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO20 UCBH HOLDINGS, INC.; THOMAS S. WU; ) DEFENDANTS DANIEL M.

EBRAHIM SHABUDIN; CRAIG ON; DENNIS ) GAUTSCH'S, DOUGLAS21 WU; ROBERT NAGEL; JOHN M. KERR; ) MITCHELL'S, AND ROBERT

DANIEL M. GAUTSCH; DOUGLAS ) NAGEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS22 MITCHELL, BURTON D. THOMPSON; JOHN )

23CLASS ACTION CINDEREY; JOSEPH J. JOU; PIN PIN CHAU; )

LI-LIN KO; JAMES KWOK; QINGYUAN WAN; )24 GODWIN WONG; DAVID NG; DANIEL P. )

Hon. Jeffrey S. WhiteRILEY; and RICHARD LI-CHUNG WANG ) Hearing Date: February 18, 2011

25 ) Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor

26Defendants. ) Time: 9:00 a.m.

)27

28 0

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel Motion to Dismiss CivilAction No. 09-04208-JSW

Case3:09-cv-04208-JSW Document176 Filed01/07/11 Page2 of 18

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT iv

5 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1

6 II. DEFENDANTS MADE FALSE STATEMENTS 1

7 A. Defendants Substantially Participated or Had Intricate Involvement in

8 Making UCBH's Concededly False Statements 2

9 1. Mitchell 210

2. Gautsch & Nagel 411

B. Mitchell Statements During Conference Calls Were False 412

III. DEFENDANTS ACTED WITH SCIENTER 413

IV. MITCHELL, GAUSTCH AND NAGEL ARE CONTROL PERSONS 714

V. CONCLUSION 715

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel Motion to Dismiss Civil

Action No. 09-04208-JSW


1 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases Page(s)

3 Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc.,

4 228 F.3d 1057, 1061, n. 5, 1062 (9 th Cir. 2000) 2

5 In re Complete Management Inc. Securities Litigation,

6 153 F. Supp. 2d 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 7

7 In re Moody 's Corp. Securities Litigation,

8 599 F. Supp. 2d 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 7

9 In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig.,

10 503 F.Supp.2d 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 6

ii In re Washington Mut. Inc. Sec., Den y. & ERISA Litig.,

12 259 F.R.D. 490 (W.D. Wash. 2009) 7

13 Patel v. Parnes,

14 253 F.R.D. 531 (C.D. Cal. 2008) 6

15 See No. 84 Employer-Teamster Joint Council Pension Trust Fund v. America West

16 Holding Co.,

17 320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003) 7

18 Siracusano v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,

19 585 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2009) 5

20 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,

21 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) 6

22

23

24

25

26

27



Case3:09-cv-04208-JSW Document176 Filed01 /07/11 Page4 of 18

1 ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

2 1. Does the CAC adequately allege that defendants Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas

3 Mitchell, and Robert Nagel made false or misleading statements?

4 2. Does the CAC adequately allege facts, that individually or holistically, create a

5 strong inference that defendants Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel acted

6 with scienter, i.e. knowingly or with deliberate recklessness?

7 3. Does the CAC adequately allege control person liability against defendants

8 Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel?

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

2 Defendants Mitchell, Nagel, and Gaustch repeat the same implausible arguments advanced

3 by the other defendants in this case. Defendants seek to evade responsibility for UCBH's

4 concededly false SEC filings and press announcements under their watch. However, the CAC

5 demonstrates that each of these defendants knowingly and substantially participated in, or had

6 intricate involvement in, the preparation of the Company's fraudulent statements, and, are thus

7 liable for securities fraud.

8 Mitchell was the officer in charge of the Company's ALL methodology and risk

9 management relating to it. Nagel was the Company's top audit executive, and Gautsch was the

10 Company's Chief Risk and Compliance Officer.

11 According to the MLR, the deliberate misconduct involved delaying risk rating downgrades

12 and minimizing the bank's overall loan loss allowance, and involved "senior executives." The

13 deliberately fraudulent actions of "senior executives" included misconduct concerning the

14 Company's loan portfolio and reserves, lending and loan operations, certain "illegal acts," and

15 lack of internal controls. These indisputably fraudulent acts could not have occurred without the

16 knowing participation or deliberately reckless indifference of the Company's senior executives

17 who developed the ALL methodology or were charged with risk and compliance functions and

18 the Company's audit function. Attribution of false statements and scienter are further

19 established by the fundamental importance of these matters to the Company. The credit crisis,

20 which occurred within the Class Period, could only have heightened the Defendants' awareness

21 of their respective functions — each of which touches on credit risk. This mandates application

22 of the core operations inference against the defendants for acts that are fundamental to his

23 corporation's business.

24 Because Mitchell, Nagel and Gautsch were high-ranking officers of the Company and/or the

25 events that give rise to this action arise from each of these Defendants' area of responsibility,

26 Plaintiffs have adequately alleged control person liability.

27 For these reasons, the motion should be denied.

28 iv Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel Motion to Dismiss Civil



1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS'

2 Mitchell joined UCB in 2004. According to the Company's 2008 10K filed March 16,

3 2009, he has since been "a major contributor in improving the Bank's operations." Pls. RJN,

4 Ex.2. On March 3, 2008 through the end of the Class Period he served as the Company's

5 Senior Vice President and Director of Corporate Development and Investor Relations. 2 1j38, Pls.

6 RJN, Ex.2. The 2008 10K, states that 1*er the past three years, he has helped the Bank

7 implement many risk management solutions, including the Allowance of Loan Loss

8 Methodology and Country Risk Management." Pls. RJN, Ex.2. Prior to joining the Company,

9 he spent seven years helping large and small banks and financial services companies with

10 technical accounting issues while working for Deloitte & Touche and Arthur Andersen. Id.

11 Certain PRs issued during the Class Period list him as the "contact" for the Company with a

12 different title, "Director of Investor Relations and Capital Management." E.g., Pls. RJN, Ex.3

13 (4/23/09 Q1 2009 earnings PR); Pls. RJN, Ex.4 (8/6/09 Q2 2009 earnings PR). The "Capital

14 Management" aspect of his role concerns the Company's regulatory ratios in determining

15 whether the Bank is well "well capitalized" (i.e. — whether impairments of loans and loan losses

16 has affected the bank's capital base)." Pls. RJN, Ex.3.

17 At all relevant times herein, Defendant Gautsch served as the Company's Executive Vice

18 President and Chief Risk and Compliance Officer. He was appointed in August 2006.1j37.

19 Nagel served as the Company's Senior Vice President and Chief Audit Executive from July

20 14, 2008 through the end of the Class Period. 1f35. Demonstrating his status within the

21 Company, On October 20, 2008, Nagel entered into a change-in-control agreement (i.e., golden

22 parachute ageement) 3 with the Company entitling him to valuable severance. Pls. RJN, Ex. 5.

23 II. DEFENDANTS MADE FALSE STATEMENTS

24

25 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the Statement of Facts in the Shabudin

26 Opp.2 Unless indicated otherwise, Mitchell, Gautsch, and Nagel's positions were at both UCBH and the

27 Bank.3

28These agreements are typically reserved for the Company's key and most senior management

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel Motion to Dismiss CivilAction No. 09-04208-JSW


1A. Defendants Substantially Participated or Had Intricate Involvement inMaking UCBH's Concededly False Statements

2 Like the other individual defendants in this case, Mitchell, Gautsch and Nagel contend that

3 the Company's concededly false SEC filings and press releases are not attributable to them.

4 Interestingly, no one at UCBH seems to have had any responsibility for proper valuation of

5 loans, assessment of loan impairments and financial reporting. However, the CAC asserts facts

6 that demonstrate that each of these defendants substantially participated or had intricate

7 involvement in the Company's false SEC filings and press announcements. 4 See Howard v.

8 Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1061, n. 5, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that "substantial

9 participation" or "intricate involvement" in false SEC filings is sufficient for attribution).

10 1. Mitchell

11 First the Company's own 2008 10K, filed with the SEC on 3/16/09, states that 1*er the

12 past three years, he has helped the Bank implement many risk management solutions, including

13 the Allowance of Loan Loss Methodology and Country Risk Management." Pls. RJN Ex. 2.

14 Mitchell is listed in some of the press releases containing false or misleading information as

15 the Contact person. He is referred to as the Company's "Senior Vice President, Director of

16 Investor Relations and Capital Management" in Q1 2009 earnings PR containing false

17 information issued on April 23, 2009, and the Q2 2009 earnings PR issued on August 6, 2009.

18 See Pls. RJN Exs. 3-4.

19 Second his substantial participation or intricate involvement is further demonstrated by his

20 address to analysts and investors during conference calls concerning the Company's and his

21 efforts to review and assess loans for ALL. 1f143a (5/7/08 analyst conference: addressing

22 analysts at conference about how the management reviewed problem loans during Q1 2008,

23 including executives getting "personally involved" to "help work through issues on workouts

24 and try to get out of particular loans while minimizing ay sort of realized losses"); 1f143b

25

26 4 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the relevant portions of the T. Wu andOn Opps. demonstrating that that the CAC adequately alleges that the Company's periodic reports filed

27 with the SEC and other public statements were materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs furtherincorporate the Shabudin and Ken- Opps addressing falsity.

28 2 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Daniel M. Gautsch, Douglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel Motion to Dismiss Civil



1 (1/24/09 earnings conference: touting "weekly monitoring" of distressed real estate markets and

2 that "senior management teams meet weekly on all or our portfolios"); 179 (10/24/08 earnings

3 conference: "we are also employing targeted independent loan reviews of our Construction

4 portfolio to ensure risk ratings, assessments of collateral support, project progress and other

5 items are accurate and reflective of current market conditions."); and 1f81 (10/24/08 earnings

6 conference: explaining to an analyst the process the company uses in assessing loans for

7 reserves, and stating that "we do all this very, very detailed analysis").

8 Third Mitchell's substantial participation or intricate involvement is demonstrated by the

9 nature of the fraud as variously set forth in the Plaintiffs' oppositions, the deliberate misconduct

10 to conceal the "deteriorating financial conditions by deliberately delaying risk rating

11 downgrades and minimizing the bank's overall loan loss allowance" involved individuals

12 variously referred to as "UCB senior executives," "UCB Officials", "UCB Management" MLR

13 p. 7; 1f83g; 1 13, MLR p. 2 of Executive Summary ("UCB officials deliberately misrepresented

14 or omitted relevant loan performance data, altered documents to improve perception of loan

15 quality, and made other misrepresentations that impacted UCBH's financial statements. UCBH

16 reported that its financial statements were materially inaccurate and required revision")

17 (emphasis added).

18 Fourth the lack of internal controls, touching upon nearly every aspect of the Company's

19 risk management, ALL, Provision, internal controls, and monitoring of thereof, were within

20 Mitchell's explicit job duties.

21 Lastly, since the Company's ALL, Provision, loan portfolio, internal controls, and

22 monitoring thereof, were at the core of the Company's operations during the Class Period, it is

23 implausible that Mitchell, the person charged with risk management as it relates to the

24 Company's ALL methodology, did not substantially participate or have intricate involvement in

25 the preparation of the UCBH's concededly false SEC filings and press releases. It is doubly

26 implausible that even as the credit crisis drew scrutiny precisely to risk management of loans,

27




I and that as the Company responded by touting weekly meetings of senior management teams,

2 Mitchell had no involvement with the false statements.

3 2. Gautsch & Nagel

4 The same points apply to both Gautsch and Nagel. Each was a senior executive officer of

5 the Company charged with primary responsibility over the fraudulent disclosures. Gautsch was

6 the Company's Chief Risk and Compliance Officer. Likewise, Nagel was the Bank's Senior

7 Vice President and Chief Audit Executive. Based on the nature and gravity of the deliberate

8 misconduct involving "senior executives", the actual deliberate misconduct, the lack of internal

9 controls, and their status within the Company, the Court should find that the CAC adequately

10 alleged Gautsch's and Nagel's substantial participation or intricate involvement in making of

11 UCBH's false SEC filings and press announcements.5

12 B. Mitchell's Statements During Conference Calls Were False6

13 Mitchell's statements from the October 24, 2008 and January 23, 2009 calls are false for the

14 same reasons that T. Wu's quoted statements are false.

15 Moreover, Mitchell's statements were made during the period — October 2008 -- which

16 KPMG later determined was the one in which the most serious deliberate misconduct was

17 occurring. E.g. MLR p. 7; 1f83g; 1f13, MLR p. 2; 1f16. As detailed herein, Mitchell's quoted

18 statements concerned the Company's and his efforts to review and assess loans for ALL. fi79,

19 81,143a-b. Mitchell suggests that his October 24, 2008 statements (fi79-81) may not have

20 occurred contemporaneously with UCBH's lack of internal controls and deliberate misconduct.

21 This is incorrect; the FDIC determined that the Company lied in its TARP application when it

22 was submitted on October 21, 2008. MLR pp. 29, 33.

23 III. DEFENDANTS ACTED WITH SCIENTER 7

24

25 5 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the relevant portions of the ThompsonOpp. addressing group pleading.

26 6 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the relevant portions of the T. Wu briefdemonstrating the falsity of his quoted statements.

27 7 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein, as if fully set forth herein, the relevant portion of the T. WuOpp. and Directors Opp addressing scienter.



Case3:09-cv-04208-JSW Documentl 76 Filed01/07/11 Pagel 0 of 18

1 In addition to the facts and circumstances demonstrating falsity above, a strong inference of

2 Defendants' scienter is established as follows.

3 Nagel: Defendant Nagel, the Chief Audit Executive, by definition was the senior executive

4 in-charge of the Company's audit, and would have worked with and interfaced with the

5 members of the Audit Committee and the Company's CFO. In that role he would have been

6 charged with information core to the Company's financial accounting. Therefore, for the same

7 reasons the Director Defendants' strong inference of scienter is established, defendant Nagel's

8 is as well.

9 Mitchell: Likewise Mitchell was concededly responsible for the Company's ALL

10 methodology, and his scienter is established for the same reasons a strong inference of scienter

11 is established for the Director Defendants.

12 Defendant Mitchell's scienter is further established because, like T. Wu, he made public

13 statements to investors and analysts during conference calls about the Company's assessment

14 and review of the loan portfolio and ALL. If the Court were to accept Mitchell's explanation

15 that he was not aware of the Company's true state of affairs when he made those statements on

16 October 24, 2008 (fi79, 81) and on January 23, 2009 (1j143b) both during the period when

17 KPMG later determined the deliberate fraud had occurred — then this would constitute an

18 independent basis for finding a strong inference of scienter. See Siracusano v. Matrin

19 Initiatives, Inc., 585 F.3d 1167, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009) (by choosing to speak, the person has a

20 duty not to mislead and be fully informed; failure to be fully informed supports a strong

21 inference of scienter).

22 Gautsch: As Executive Vice President and Chief Risk and Compliance Officer, Gautsch was

23 charged with monitoring and assessing the Company's compliance with its policies and

24 applicable laws and regulations in connection with the Company's operations. For the same

25 reasons the Company's Chief Operating Officer Shabudin's strong inference of scienter is

26 established, the Gautsch's scienter is as well.

27




1 Moreover, the Order to Cease and Desist (CAC, Ex.B) noted numerous operational

2 deficiencies including, "operating in violation of... laws and regulations." CAC Ex.B, at 2-3.

3 The MLR also revealed that in March 2009, "KPMG became suspicious that UCB officials

4 and/or employees had engaged in illegal acts to conceal the bank's true financial condition."

5 CAC, Ex.A (MLR) at p.6; 1f8. The MLR also explained that "kin 2009, examiners also

6 reviewed certain loans that were later believed to have been originated as a result of illegal

7 activities. ... These loans and approximately 150 others, as well as senior UCB management,

8 are being investigated by other units within and outside the FDIC." 1f145.

9 These illegal acts, when considered with the totality of the facts in this case, support a strong

10 inference that the Company's Chief Compliance and Risk Management acted either knowingly

11 or with deliberate recklessness.

12 Defendants contend that the lack of stock sales negate scienter. First, the Form 4s

13 submitted by Gautsch (Gautsch RJN, Exs.A-D) are inadmissible for the truth of the matter

14 asserted, i.e. Defendants did not sell stock. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at

15 Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather the Court, can only consider the fact that

16 such Form 4s were filed and cannot infer that they accurately portrayed the Defendants'

17 positions. Patel v. Parnes, 253 F.R.D. 531, 545-46 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Even if the Court were to

18 consider the securities transactions represented in the Form 4s submitted, the Form 4s do not

19 actually document any transactions in UCBH's common stock. They merely indicate the award

20 of stock options to Defendants as part of their compensation. When the options became

21 exercisable, the price of UCBH's stock was far below the exercise price. 8 These transactions,

22 actually demonstrate a pecuniary motive to continue the fraud and keep the Company afloat, so

23 that the options would one day have value. See In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 503 F.Supp.2d 611,

24 646-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (rejecting argument that defendants' stock purchases were inconsistent

25

26 The following are the dates when the options could be exercised and the UCBH stock price trading

27 price: (a) 1/25/08, $12.30-$13.32; (b) 2/12/09, $2.01-$2.28; and (c) 7/24/09, $.97-$1.10. See Pls. RINIEx. 7.




1 with fraud, because defendants might have believed that uncollectable receivables could be

2 hidden indefinitely). Regardless, motive is not an essential component of scienter. See No. 84

3 Employer-Teamster Joint Council Pension Trust Fund v. America West Holding Co., 320 F.3d

4 920, 944 (9th Cir. 2003).

5 IV. MITCHELL, GAUSTCH AND NAGEL ARE CONTROL PERSONS9

6 As noted, Mitchell's responsibilities at the Company concerned the primary violations he

7 was in charge of the ALL methodology and risk management thereto. Moreover, he made

8 statements about and concerning the same to investors and analysts at conference calls, is listed

9 as a contact on the certain in the Company's false PRs. He variously served as Senior Vice

10 President and Director of Corporate Development and Investor Relations, and Director of

11 Investor Relations and Capital Management. Likewise, Nagel was in charge of the Company's

12 audit, which concerned the primary violations. Nagel was the Company's Senior Vice

13 President and Chief Audit Executive. Gautsch was the Company's Executive Vice President

14 and Chief Risk and Compliance Officer.

15 These facts demonstrate Mitchell's, Gautsch's, and Nagel's control person liability. See, e.g.

16 In re Washington Mut. Inc. Sec., Den y. & ERISA Litig., 259 F.R.D. 490, 509 (W.D. Wash.

17 2009) (finding that director members of the audit and finance committees were control persons

18 because the responsibilities of those committees related to the primary violations arising out of

19 improper lending practices); In re Complete Management Inc. Securities Litigation, 153 F.

20 Supp. 2d 314, 325-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (holding that defendant Executive Vice President had

21 control under Section 20 by virtue of defendant's position alone sufficient to survive 12(b)(6)

22 motion); In re Moody's Corp. Securities Litigation, 599 F. Supp. 2d 493, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

23 (holding that defendant Chief Compliance Officer had control under Section 20 by virtue of

24 defendant's position alone sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) motion).

25 V. CONCLUSION

26

27 9 Plaintiffs incorporate herein, as if fully set forth herein, the relevant portion of the Directors,Thompson and Ken- Opps. addressing control person liability.




1 For the foregoing reasons Mitchell's, Gautsch's, and Nagel's motion should be denied.

2 Should the court grant their motion, for the same reasons set forth in the Thompson Opp., leave

3 to amend should be granted.

4 Dated: January 7, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

5 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

6/s/ Laurence Rosen .

7 Laurence M. Rosen (SBN # 219683)333 South Grand Avenue, 25 th Floor

8 Los Angeles, CA 90071

9 Telephone: (213) 785-2610Facsimile: (213) 226-4684

10 Email: lrosenkitosenleoal.com

11 and

12Phillip Kim, Esq. (pro hac vice)

13 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor

14 New York, New York 10016

15 Telephone: (212) 686-1060Facsimile: (212) 202-3827

16 Email: pkini(Mrosenle gal. corn

17 Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I, Phillip Kim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as3follows:4

I am an attorney with the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. I am over the age of eighteen.5

6On January 7, 2011, I electronically filed the following PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANTS DANIEL M. GAUTSCH'S, DOUGLAS MITCHELL'S, AND7

8 ROBERT NAGEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system which sent notification of such filing to counsel of record set forth in the attached9

service list.10

On the same date I also caused the document to be submitted to the Stanford Law1112 School Class Action Clearinghouse via email to [email protected] .

13Executed on January 7, 2011.

14/s/ Phillip Kim

15 Phillip Kim

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



Case3:09-cv-04208-JSW Documentl 76 Filed01/07/11 Page15 of 18

MASTER SERVICE LIST

Laurence M. Rosen Phillip KimThe Rosen Law Firm, P.A. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.333 South Grand Avenue 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor25th Floor New York, NY 10016Los Angeles, CA 90071 212-686-1060213-785-2610 212-202-3827 (fax)213-226-4684 (fax) [email protected]@rosenlegal.com

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Kyung Cho,Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Kyung Cho, & Named Plaintiffs Rex Dechakul and David& Named Plaintiffs Rex Dechakul and HwangDavid HwangJames Antone Lassart Steven Mark BauerRopers Majeski Kohn & Bentley Timothy Paul Crudo201 Spear Street Matthew HeltonSuite 1000 Latham & WatkinsSan Francisco, CA 94105 505 Montgomery Street415-543-4800 19th Floor415-972-6301 (fax) San Francisco, CA [email protected] 415-391-0600

415-395-8095 (fax)[email protected]@[email protected]

Counsel for Defendant Ebrahim Shabudin Counsel for Defendant Thomas S. Wu

Jordan Eth Thomas Francis KoegelAnna Erickson White Crowell & Moring LLPCraig Martin 275 Battery Street, 23rd FloorMorrison & Foerster LLP San Francisco, CA 94111425 Market Street 415-986-2800San Francisco, CA 94105 415-986-2827 (fax)415-268-6000 [email protected] (fax)[email protected]@[email protected]

Counsel for Defendant Craig On, Denis Wu, Counsel for E. Lynn Schoemnann InterestedJoseph Jou, Pin Pin Chau, Li-Lin Ko, Party/ Bankruptcy Trustee for UCBHGodwin Wong, David Ng, Daniel P. Riely, Holdings, Inc.and Richard Li-Chung Wang

1


Daniel J. Bergeson William P. KeaneGrace Y. Park Anthony P. SchoenbergBergeson, LLP Nell K. Clement303 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 500 FareIla Braun + Martel LLPSan Jose, CA 95110-2712 235 Montgomery Street, 17th FloorTelephone: (408) 291-6200 San Francisco, CA 94104Facsimile: (408) 297-6000 Telephone: (415) [email protected] Facsimile: (415) [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]@fbm.com

Counsel for defendants Daniel M. Gautsch, Counsel for defendant John M. KerrDouglas Mitchell, and Robert Nagel

Jeffrey L. BornsteinMikal J. CondonClaudia A. QuirozK&L Gates LLP4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200San Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: 415.882.8200Facsimile: 415.882.8220

Counsel for defendant Burton D. Thompson

Nicole Catherine Lavallee Ira Neil RichardsAnthony David Phillips Kenneth I. TrujilloJoseph J. Tabacco, Jr. Jennifer AgnewBerman Devalerio Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLCOne California Street 1717 Arch StreetSuite 900 Suite 3838San Francisco, CA 94111 Philadelphia, PA 19103415-433-3200 215-731-9004415-433-6382 (fax) 215-731-9044 (fax)[email protected] [email protected]@[email protected]

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movants City of Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movants City ofPhiladelphia Board of Pensions and Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement,Retirement, and Louisiana Municipal Police and Louisiana Municipal Police EmployeesEmployees Retirement System. Retirement System.

2


Lionel Z. Glancy Dustin Lamm SchubertMichael M. Goldberg Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLPGlancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 3 Embarcadero Center1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Suite 1650Los Angeles, CA 90067 San Francisco, CA 94111310/201-9150 415-788-4220(310) 201-9160 (fax) 415-788-0161 (fax)[email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant Mark Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant DeKalbCooper, Dominique Durbin, Huy Tran County Pension Fund

James M. Wilson Ramzi AbadouChitwood Harley Barnes LLP Erik David Peterson1230 Peachtree Street, NE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLPPromenade II, Suite 2300 580 California StreetAtlanta, GA 30309 Suite 1750404-873-3900 San Francisco, CA 94104404-876-4476 (fax) [email protected] 415-400-3001 (fax)

[email protected]@btkmc.com

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant DeKalb Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movants SalvadorCounty Pension Fund Perez, and Chite Lai

Darren Jay Robbins Robert S. GreenBrian 0. O'Mara Green Welling, P.C.Shawn A. Williams 595 Market Street, Suite 2750Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins San Francisco, CA 94105LLP 415-477-6700655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 415-477-6710 (fax)San Diego, CA 92101 CAND.USCOURTS@CLAS SCOUNSEL. COM619/231-1058(619) 231-7423 (fax)e file [email protected]'[email protected]@csgr.com

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant Pension Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movants Lap YinTrust Fund For Operating Engineers, and Chan, and Wai Shan Chan and Plaintiffs DanielPlaintiff Waterford Township General Nygaard, Wendy Fong, and James ElamEmployees Retirement System

3


Ralph M. Stone Mark Cotton MolumphyAmanda C. Scuder Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthyShalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 840 Malcolm Road485 Seventh Ave, Suite 1000 Suite 200New York, NY 10018 Burlingame, Ca 94010212-239-4340 (650)697-6000Email: [email protected] 650-697-0577 (fax)Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movants Lap Yin Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant the YanChan, and Wai Shan Chan and Plaintiffs GroupDaniel Nygaard, Wendy Fong, and JamesElam

Jacqueline Scott CorleyAdrian James SawyerKerr & Wagstaffe LLP100 Spear Street18th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105415-371-8500415-371-0500 (fax)[email protected]@kerrwagstaffe.com

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant TheFirefighters' Pension System of the City ofKansas City, Missouri Trust

4

kyung cho, et al. v. ucbh holdings, inc., et al. 09-cv...

Documents